BX  8915  .M37  v. 3-4 
Mason,  John  M.  1770-1829 
The  writings  of  the  late 
John  M.  Mason,  D.D 


■a-'  'f?:^'*' 


THE 


WRITINGS 


OF  THE  LATE 


JOHN   M.^^l  ASON,   D.D 


CONSISTING  OF 


SERMONS,  ESSAYS,  AND  MISCELLANIES, 


INCLUDING  ESSAYS  ALREADY  PUBLISHED  IN  THE    "CHRISTIAN  MAGAZINE." 


IN    FOUR   VOLUMES. 


SELECTED  AND  ARRANGED  B 


7 


REV.  EBENEZER  MASON. 


VOL.  III. 


NEW  YORK 


PIIBLI.SHEP    BY    THE    EDITOR. 
1832. 


"  KnUTMl,  or.nrrfiiig  ii.  ar>)  of  rongrpse,  in  the  VfHr  lf<32,  l.y  Rev.  Kbt-nezpi  Mnson, 
ill  tlie  clerk's  office  „!'  iIk!  mjiilliern  dinirlrt  of  New  Yoik." 


'LCIOHI  AND  ROBINSON,  PHINTTRS. 


CONTENTS    OF    VOLUME    III. 


On    Religious    Controversy,  being    introduction    to 
"  Christian  Magazine,"        ......        1 

REVIEW. 

ESSAYS   ON  EPISCOPACY. 


The  Essays  reviewed, 15 

Diocesan  Episcopacy  not  sustained  by  an  examination  of 
Scriptural  titles,  .......     37 

Nor  by  Jewish  Priesthood,  . 

Church  in  our  Lord's  time, 

New  Testament  facts, 

Official  character  of  James, 

Epistles  to  the  seven  churches, 

Official  character  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  .  163 

Testimony  of  the  Fathers,  .         .  208 


.  66 
.  86 
.  104 
.  122 
.  133 


IV 


CONSIDERATIONS   ON   LOTS 


The  nature  of  a  lot, 

No 

I, 

.  266 

lis  scriptural  use, 

11. 

.  275 

Its  abuses, 

III. 

.  287 

Continued, 

IV. 

,   '      .296 

Evils  incident  to  its  abuses, 

V. 

.  306 

Faith  and  Justification, 

.  317 

CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  DEATH   OF 
HUME  AND  FINLEY. 


David  Hume's  last  sickness,  . 
Last  words  of  Samuel  Finley,  D.  D., 
Remarks  upon  the  preceding, 
Conversation  with  a  young  traveler, 
Insufficiency  of  the  light  of  nature. 


349 
359 
366 
387 
403 


ON    RELIGIOUS    CONTROVERSY. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  CHRISTIAN'S  .MAGAZINE. 


As  one  of  the  avowed  designs  of  this  work  is 
to  assert  the  truth  and  refute  error,  it  has  to 
combat  in  the  outset  a  fashionable  and  imposing 
prejudice.  It  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted, 
that  how  perfect  soever  the  right  of  judging 
and  professing  for  ourselves,  there  exists  no 
right  of  inquiry  into  the  judgment  or  profession 
of  others.  In  religion,  at  least,  this  maxim  is 
held  to  be  incontrovertible  by  many  who  never 
think  of  applying  it  to  any  other  subject.  To 
disquisitions  on  topics  in  which  all  denomina- 
tions agree,  they  can  listen  with  pleasure ;  they 
can  even  permit  the  peculiarities  of  each  to  be 
detailed  in  succession ;  but  from  every  thing 
which  wears  the  form  of  controversy  thev  turn 
away  with  spontaneous  cOntempt.  Their  aver- 
sion is  so  fixed  that  hardly  any  plea  of  excel- 

VOL.  III.  1 


2  Introduction. 

lence  will  be  allowed  in  behalf  of  a  work  which 
stands  convicted  on  the  charge  of  being  contro- 
versial. The  fact  is  sufficient  to  preclude  every 
other  trial,  and  to  infer  condemnation  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course. 

That  these  summary  and  oftentimes  injurious 
decisions  have  been  unprovoked  on  the  part  of 
disputants,  I  shall  not  affirm.  On  the  contrary, 
I  will  freely  concede  that  the  unfairness,  the 
heat,  and  the  rudeness,  which  too  frequently 
occur  in  polemical  writings,  are  most  offensive 
to  the  discreet  reader,  and  make  him  shy  of  au- 
thors from  w  horn  he  may  expect  such  entertain- 
ment. 

But  while  there  can  be  no  apology  for  conduct 
which  offers  equal  violence  to  the  rules  of  good 
breeding  and  the  precepts  of  Christianity,  there 
is  ground  to  suspect  that  more  is  attributed  to  its 
influence  in  producing  the  prevalent  dislike  to 
controversy  than  it  can  justly  claim.    For  as  our 
age  must  not  arrogate  to  itself  the  praise  of  all 
the  meekness  and  candor  wiiich  have  been  in 
the  world,  so  it  is  certain  that  men  great  and 
good,  pacific  and  modest,  have  studied  the  most 
controverted  themes  in  an  age  when  harshness 
and  incivility  were  more  common  than  they  are 
now.     In  accounting,  then,   for  that  prejudice 
which  we  are  considering,  much  must  be  de- 
ducted from  the  current  professions  of  courtesy 


Tntroduction.  3 

and  candor,  and  transferred  to  that  indifference 
which  will  not  be  at  the  pains  to  examine  on 
which  side  lies  the  right  of  a  question  concern- 
ing eternal  hope !  For  such  a  morbid  state  of 
feeling  we  can  suggest  no  remedy,  and  can  only- 
pour  out  our  most  fervent  prayer  that  the  first 
admonition  which  it  shall  be  compelled  to  regard 
may  not  be  that  awful  voice,  ''  Son,  remember 
that  thou  in  thy  lifetime  hadst  thy  good  things !" 
The  prejudice  itself,  unlike  those  lessons  with 
which  truth  and  wisdom  preoccupy  the  heart, 
will  appear,  upon  a  close  inspection,  to  be  as 
destitute  of  solidity  as  it  is  assuming  in  manner ; 
for,  in  the 

1st  place,  It  admits  not  of  dispute  that  the 
holy  scriptures  point  out  an  opposite  course. 
Their  injunction  is,  to  buy  the  truth  and  sell  it  not. 
To  cease  from  the  instruction  that  causeth  to  err 
from  the  loords  of  knowledge — earnestly  to  contend 
for  the- faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints — to  try 
the  sjnrits  whether  they  arc  of  God.  All  these 
directions  imply,  not  that  men  are  to  spend  their 
lives  in  laying  the  foundations  of  their  faith,  but 
that  they  are  to  employ  their  opportunities  and 
faculties  in  selecting  the  true  from  the  false; 
that  they  are  to  prize  it  when  selected ;  to  en- 
rich it  with  fresh  acquisitions ;  and  to  defend  it 
with  their  utmost  skill.  How  this  can  be  done 
without  controversy,  so  long  as  there  are  ''  de- 


4  Tnlrodxullon. 

ceivers  in  the  world,"  it  is  incumbent  on  them 
to  show  who  Avould  suffer  tlie  truths  of  the  gos- 
pel to  be  sacrificed,  one  after  another,  by  men 
of  "  corru|)t  minds,"  rather  than  raise  a  finger  or 
press  an  argument  for  their  protection.  It  is 
indeed  not  more  lamentable  than  true,  that  a 
host  of  candidates  beset  the  inquirer.  Every 
sect  cries  out,  we  are  the  j^cople,  and  tJce  law  of 
the  Lord  is  v-itli  us ;  every  partisan  enforces  the 
pretensions  of  his  sect.  But  this,  though  fre- 
quently urged,  is  the  weakest  of  all  reasons  for 
keeping  aloof  from  investigation.  The  amount 
is,  "  the  danger  of  going  astray  is  great,  the  con- 
sequences fatal ;  therefore  I  will  shut  my  eyes." 
Good  sense  would  say,  "  the  danger  of  error  is 
great,  the  consequences  fatal ;  therefore  I  will 
use  all  my  diligence  that  1  may  not  be  misled ;" 
for  certainly,  if  "  straight  be  the  gate  and  narrow 
the  way  which  leadeth  imto  life,"  we  have  the 
strongest  inducement  possible  to  search  out  and 
embrace  the  "  few  who  find  it."  We  are,  there- 
fore, reduced  to  this  alternative,  either  that  there 
is  no  truth  at  all,  or  that  we  are  bound  to  seek 
it  through  every  peril,  to  distinguish  its  voice 
amid  all  clamors,  and  to  possess  it  at  any  price. 
If  this  condition  seem  hard,  let  it  be  remembered, 
2.  That  it  is  not  left  to  our  discretion  whether 
we  shall  choose  or  not. 


Introdacdoii.  5 

The  determination  to  clioose  notkiiig  is  a  de- 
termination not  to  clioose  the  truth,  and  this 
draws  after  it  the  condemnation  of  those  who 
love  darkness  rather  than  light.  Tlie  mos*t  high 
God  having  given  us  his  word  as  the  rule  of  our 
faith  and  duty,  a  neglect  to  seek  its  counsel  be- 
cause men  wrangle  about  its  meaning,  is  to  make 
the  hazard  of  going  wrong  a  reason  for  never 
being  anxious  to  go  right.  It  would  be  like  the 
excuse  of  a  servant,  who,  having  in  common 
with  others  received  his  master's  orders  to  re- 
pair to  a  certain  place,  should  resolve  not  to  stir 
because  his  fellow-servants  quarreled  about  the 
road.  Their  disobedience  could  never  justify 
his.  Nor  is  there  a  man  upon  earth  who  would 
not  pronounce  it  to  be  the  plea  of  a  fool,  that  out 
of  his  pure  love  of  peace  he  had  never  been  at 
the  trouble  to  ascertain  the  import  of  his  ma.s- 
ter's  instructions  !  The  fact  is,  that  no  medium 
can  be  assigned  between  receiving  and  rejecting 
the  truth.  If  rejected,  we  seal  our  own  perdi- 
tion— if  received,  we  must  reject  whatever  is 
hostile  to  it ;  that  is,  we  must  institute  a  com- 
parison between  conflicting  claims,  which  is  pre- 
cisely the  object  of  controversy. 

Pursuing  the  argument  a  little  farther,  we 
shall  perceive,  in  the 

3d  place,  That  in  disclaiming  all  controversy, 
we  set  out  with  a  principle  wliich  it  is  impossible 
to  carry  through. 


(3  Introduction. 

In  what  department  of  society,  or  on  what 
subject  of  discourse,  do  the  thoughts  of  men 
accord  7  The  law  has  long  been  celebrated  for 
its  fertility  in  litigation.  Medicine  is  hardly 
inferior  to  the  bar ;  agriculture  keeps  up  a  sharp 
debate  with  commerce ;  and  the  politician  has 
always  to  navigate  a  "  tempestuous  sea."  Not 
a  project,  a  character,  nor  an  incident,  can  be 
introduced  into  common  conversation  without 
calling  forth  different  strictures,  according  to  the 
views,  habits,  relations,  and  tempers  of  the 
company.  And  it  is  by  no  means  unusual  for 
some,  who  abhor  controversy  in  religion,  to  be 
both  talkative  and  disputatious,  if  not  dogmatic 
and  bitter,  on  other  matters.  The  world  is  a 
vast  scene  of  strife.  A  man  must  either  take  it 
as  he  finds  it,  and  bear  his  part  in  the  general 
collision,  or  else  go  out  of  it  altogether.  It  is 
the  inevitable  consequence  of  imperfect  know- 
ledge and  depraved  appetite,  of  that  confusion 
of  intellect  and  corruption  of  heart  which  jflow 
from  sin.  When,  therefore,  we  are  under  the 
necessity  of  either  being  exiled  from  society,  or 
of  giving  and  receiving  contradiction ;  and  when 
we  submit  to  this  necessity  without  murmuring 
in  all  cases  but  those  which  concern  religion, 
what  is  it  but  to  declare  that  principles  affecting 
our  duty  toward  God,  the  highest  happiness  of 
onr  nature,  and  our  responsibility  for  a  future 


Inlrodiiciion.  7 

state,  are  the  only  things  not  worth  contending 
for? 

The  pretense,  that  religion  is  a  concern  too 
solemn  and  sacred  for  the  passions  of  contro- 
versy, is  like  the  pretense  with  which  some 
justify  their  ''restraining  prayer  before  God;" 
that  he  is  too  high  and  holy  to  be  approached 
by  such  beings  as  they  are.  And  thus,  to  dis- 
play their  reverence,  they  become  profane,  and 
live  like  atheists  from  pure  devotion  !  Both  are 
cases  of  error  without  excuse ;  we  may  neither 
be  light  in  prayer  nor  wrathful  in  debate. 

If  it  be  alledged  that  religion  loses  more  than 
she  gains  by  controversy,  this,  with  an  allowance 
for  the  mismanagement  of  unskillful  advocates; 
is  a  direct  censure  of  her  champions,  and  a  sur- 
render of  her  cause.  Are  they  who  espouse 
such  an  opinion  prepared  for  its  consequences  7 
Are  they  willing  to  say,  that  when  the  world 
was  lying  in  ignorance,  in  wickedness,  and  in 
wo,  the  introduction  of  light  from  above  pro- 
duced more  evil  than  good  ?  That  the  gospel 
is  a  plague  and  not  a  blessing,  because,  through 
the  malignity  of  its  foes,  it  has  often  brought  a 
sword  instead  of  peace?  That  it  had  been 
better  for  men  never  to  have  ''  known  the  way 
of  righteousness,"  than  risk  opposition  in  fol- 
lowing if?  That  the  reformation  of  religion 
was  a  senseless  scheme ;  that  the  martyrs  died 


S  lutrodacUon. 

like  fools ;  and  that  all  the  heroes  who  have 
been  "  valiant  for  the  truth  " — all  the  ''  ministers 
of  grace  "  who  have  explained  and  established 
it— all  the  "  apostles,  and  prophets,  and  wise 
men,"  whom  the  wisdom  of  God  commissioned 
to  reveal  it — and  that  wisdom  itself  in  the  per- 
son of  Jesus  Christ — were  disturbers  of  human 
tranquillity,  and  spent  their  time  in  no  better 
labor  than  that  of  "  turning  the  world  upside 
down?"  If  you  start  at  these  things,  what  do 
you  mean  by  asserting  that  "religion  suffers 
from  controversy  V  For  all,  prophets,  apostles, 
wise  men,  and  the  Redeemer  himself,  fought  her 
battles,  and  yielded  their  latest  breath  in  her 
defense ! 

You  cannot  stop  even  here.  Religion,  you 
say,  suffers  from  controversy.  Then  it  cannot 
endure  investigation.  It  shrinks  from  the  touch 
of  reason,  for  controversy  is  reasoning ;  and,  of 
course,  it  cannot  be  true,  for  truth  never  yet  de- 
clined the  test,  nor  sustained  the  slightest  harm 
from  the  most  fiery  ordeal.  On  the  assumption, 
therefore,  that  religion  has  truth  on  her  side, 
you  can  hardly  do  her  a  greater  injury  than  to 
forbid  her  entering  into  the  lists  with  her  anta- 
gonists. They  will  represent,  and  argue,  and 
declaim.  They  will  solicit,  and  soothe,  and  flat- 
ter, and  sneer,  till  they  pervert  the  judgment  of 
many,  and  seduce  the  affections  of  more;  and 


Introduction.  9 

religion,  betrayed  and  insulted,  her  banner 
thrown  down,  her  weapons  shivered,  her  lips 
sealed,  her  limbs  bound  "  in  affliction  and  iron," 
is  to  be  laid  at  their  feet  and  left  to  their  mercy, 
in  testimony  of  the  respect  and  attachment  of 
her  friends  !  It  was  not  in  this  way  that  they 
formerly  treated  her,  nor  is  it  to  this  treatment 
that  we  owe  our  privileges.  Her  enemies,  po- 
tent, subtle,  and  persevering,  were  encountered 
by  her  sons,  and  defeated  as  often  as  they  ven- 
tured into  the  field.  Those  masterly  defenses  of 
revelation,  those  profound  researches  into  its 
sense,  that  flood  of  light  which  has  been  poured 
upon  its  peculiar  doctrines  and  its  benign  insti- 
tutions, are  the  recompense  of  the  war  which 
Christian  zeal  and  talent  have  waged  in  its 
cause.  Had  apathy  like  ours  enthralled  the 
spirit  of  our  fathers,  we  should  hardly  have  been 
able,  at  this  day,  to  distinguish  in  religion  be- 
tween our  right  hand  and  our  left. 

The  prejudice,  therefore,  against  religious 
controversy,  is  irrational  and  hurtful.  It  is  a 
prejudice  against  the  progress  and  victories  of 
truth.  The  misconduct  of  opponents  to  each 
other,  is  a  personal  concern.  It  disgraces  them- 
selves, but  belongs  not  to  the  nature  or  merits 
of  any  controversy.  This,  in  itself  considered, 
is  but  the  comparison  of  jarring  opinions  ;  with 
a  reference,  in  matters  of  religion,  to  the  scrip- 

VoL.  III.  2 


10  Introduction. 

tural  standard.  There  is  no  more  necessity  for 
falling  into  a  rage  when  demonstrating  a  propo- 
sition in  Christianity,  than  when  demonstrating 
a  proposition  in  mathematics  :  although  the  infi- 
nitely interesting  quality  of  the  one  above  the 
other,  will  involve  a  deeper  feeling ;  will  furnish 
an  explanation  of  the  warmth  which  is  apt  to 
accompany  it ;  and  will  draw  from  candor  an 
allowance  for  our  common  frailty. 

Controversy  then  b.eing  unavoidable,  as  truth 
and  falsehood  often  meet,  and  never  agree,  it 
must  occasionally  occupy  every  one  who  wishes 
to  have  a  good  conscience.  But  as  great  evils 
result  from  an  iniproioer  manner  of  conducting  it, 
the  remarks  in  this  paper  are  to  be  understood 
as  contemplating  it  under  the  following  restric- 
tions : 

1.  There  should  be  no  personal  asperity.  The 
greater  part  of  feuds  arises  from  the  rash  use  of 
names  and  epithets.  If  one  is  obliged  to  expose 
weakness  or  disingenousness,  let  not  the  expo- 
sure separate  decorum  from  strength ;  nor  forfeit 
respect  in  the  act  of  forcing  conviction. 

2.  There  should  be  no  impeachment  of  mo- 
tives, where  facts  to  justify  such  a  censure  are 
not  too  palpable  to  be  set  aside.  The  bosom  is 
a  sacred  retreat :  God  alone  can  explore  it  with- 
out the  aid  of  external  evidence.  And,  there- 
fore, a  man  must  be  his  own  betrayer,  before  his 


Introduction.  11 

fellow-man  may  presume  to  judge  of  what  passes 
in  his  heart.  Bad  as  the  condition  of  the  world 
is,  it  would  be  unutterably  worse,  if  men  al- 
ways meant  whatever  their  words  convey,  or 
even  their  actions  indicate.  Many  persons  have 
said  and  done,  with  the  utmost  integrity  of  mo- 
tive, things  which  could  not  have  been  said  or 
done  by  some  others  without  an  absolute  sacri- 
fice of  principle — though  it  is  not  hence  to  be 
inferred  that  the  things  were  right. 

3.  No  consequence  of  an  opinion  should  be 
attributed  to  those  by  whom  it  is  disowned. 

As  the  number  of  correct  reasoners  is  compa- 
ratively few,  positions  are  often  advanced,  of 
which  their  authors  are  far  from  perceiving  the 
real  tendency.  This  observation  solves  a  diffi- 
culty that  otherwise  would  be  very  embarrass- 
ing. Many  a  one  whose  piety  it  would  be  inso- 
lent to  question,  has  held  tenets  Avhich  lead  to^ 
the  most  impious  conclusions.  What  then? 
must  we  say  that  these  conclusions  form  a  part 
of  his  creed,  and  arraign  him  when  he  denies 
them,  as  being  at  once  both  a  blasphemer  and  a 
hypocrite  7  For  example  :  because  we  are  per- 
suaded that  opposition  to  the  imputed  righteous- 
ness of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  reformed  churches  concerning  the  divine 
decrees,  will  drive  the  opposers,  if  closely  fol- 
lowed up,  through  the  Socinian  and  deistical 


12  Introduction. 

camps,  into  atheism  itself;  are  we,  therefore, 
to  brand  them  as  Socinians,  deists,  or  atheists  ? 
God  forbid !  It  is  our  consolation  to  know  that 
multitudes  of  them  w^ould,  with  horror,  abjure 
their  views  on  these  points,  could  they  see  them 
to  be  connected  with  such  results ;  and  to  believe 
that  they  renounce  in  words,  things,  which,  with- 
out being  aware  of  it,  they  love  in  their  hearts. 
It  is  ignorance  of  this  sort  which,  in  some  cases, 
reconciles  with  the  existence  of  grace,  a  notion 
subversive  of  the  gospel.  Let  me  not,  however, 
be  supposed  to  favor  in  the  slightest  degree,  that 
monster  of  modern  philosophy — the  innocence 
of  error.  Detect  it ;  pursue  it ;  hunt  it  down  ; 
urge  it  over  the  precipice  :  but  permit  those  who 
started  with  it  to  disengage  themselves  in  sea- 
son, and  save  their  lives.  In  plain  words :  charge 
home  upon  error  its  most  tremendous  conse- 
quences ;  but  charge  them  not,  when  solemnly 
disavowed,  upon  the  man  whom  it  has  misled. 
If  you  reason  fairly,  he  must  either  quit  his 
ground,  or  maintain  it  feebly ;  and  while  your 
triumph  will  be  complete,  neither  mercy  nor 
justice  will  forbid  you  to  let  him  shelter  himself 
from  crime  amid  the  thickets  of  contradiction. 

The  reader  will  doubtless  apply  the  foregoing 
rules,  without  abatement,  to  the  disquisitions  in 
the  present  work.  And  his  right  to  do  so  is  un- 
questionable.    That  he  shall  never,  in  perusing 


Introduction.  13 

it,  meet  with  an  instance  of  transgression,  it 
would  savor  of  boasting  to  affirm.  But  that  it 
shall  not  be  often  repeated,  nor  long  continued, 
he  may  reasonably  demand.  Care  shall  certainly 
be  employed  that  the  Christian's  Magazine  be 
not  unworthy  of  its  name ;  but  if,  unhappily,  any 
thing  of  a  different  mark  should  steal  into  its 
pages,  let  the  Christian  critic  remember  that  he 
owes  to  its  Avriters  the  same  indulgence  which 
they  ow^e  to  him :  and  he  will  enter  an  occa- 
sional trespass  into  his  account  current  with 
human  imperfection. 


ESSAYS    ON    EPISCOPACY. 


PEIHCBTQH 

THBOLOGICiLL 
REVIEW. 


J^  Collection  of  Essays  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy, 
which  originally  appeared  in  the  Albany  Centinel, 
and  which  are  principally  ascribed  to  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Linn.,  the  Rev.  JVLr.  Beasley,  and  Thomas  Y.  How, 
Esq.  With  additional  notes  and  remarks.  8vo.  p.  p. 
210.  New-York,  T.  &  J.  Swords,  1806. 


Early  in  the  summer  of  1804,  the  Rev.  John 
Henry  Hobart,  an  assistant  minister  of  Trinity 
Church,  New-York,  pubhshed  a  work,  entitled, 
"  A  Companion  for  the  Altar :  consisting  of  a  short 
explanation  of  the  Lord'^s  Supper  ;  and  meditations  and 
prayers,  proper  to  be  used  before,  and  during  the  receiv- 
ing of  the  Holy  Communion,  according  to  the  form 
prescribed  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  the 
United  States  of  America.^''  This  was  followed,  in 
the  fall  of  the  same  year,  by  another  compilation, 
from  the  pen  of  the  same  gentleman,  entitled,  "  A 
Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
Amfrica.'''* 


16  1  Review. 

These  volumes,  especially  the  former,  appear- 
ed, at  the  time  of  their  publication,  not  only  to  the 
non-episcopal  reader,  but,  if  we  are  correctly  in- 
formed, to  discreet  Episcopalians  themselves,  to 
advance  claims  which  it  is  extremely  difficult  to 
substantiate. 

Of  the  nature  of  these  claims,  the  following  ex- 
tract from  the  Companion  for  the  Altar^  will  give 
a  general  idea. 

"  The  Judge  of  the  whole  earth  indeed  will  do 
right.  The  grace  of  God  quickens  and  animates 
all  the  degenerate  children  of  Adam.  The  mercy 
of  the  Saviour  is  co-extensive  with  the  ruin  into 
which  sin  has  plunged  mankind.  And  '  in  every 
nation,  he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh  right- 
eousness is  accepted  of  him.'  But  where  the  Gos- 
pel is  proclaimed,  communion  with  the  church  by 
the  participation  of  its  ordinances,  at  the  hands  of 
the  duly  authorized  priesthood,  is  the  indispensa- 
ble condition  of  salvation.  Separation  from  the 
prescribed  government  and  regular  pristhood  of 
the  church,  when  it  proceeds  from  involuntary  arid 
unavoidable  ignorance  or  error,  we  have  reason  to 
trust,  will  not  intercept  from  the  humble,  the  peni- 
tent, and  obedient,  the  blessings  of  God's  favour. 
But  when  we  humbly  submit  to  that  priesthood 
which  Christ ^and  his  apostles  constituted  ;  when, 
in  the  lively  exercise  of  penitence  and  faith,  we 
partake  of  the  ordinances  administered  by  them, 
we   maintain  our  communion  with  that  church 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  17 

which  the  Redeemer  purifies  by  his  blood,  which 
he  quickens  by  his  Spirit,  and  whose  faithful  mem- 
bers ,4ie  will  finally  crown  with  the  most  exalted 
glories  of  his  heavenly  kingdom.  The  important 
truth  which  the  universal  church  has  uniformly 
maintained,  that,  to  experience  the  full  and  exalt- 
ed efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  we  must  receive 
them  from  a  valid  authority,  is  not  inconsistent 
with  that  charity  which  extends  mercy  to  all  who 
labour  under  involuntary  error.  But  great  is  the 
guilt,  and  imminent  the  danger,  of  those  who,  pos- 
sessing the  means  of  arriving  at  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth,  negligently  or  wilfully  continue  in  a  state 
of  separation  from  the  authorized  ministry  of  the 
church,  and  participate  of  ordinances  administer- 
ed by  an  irregular  and  invalid  authority.  Wilful- 
ly rending  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church,  by 
separating  from  the  ministrations  of  its  authorized 
priesthood;  obstinately  contemning  the  means 
which  God  in  his  sovereign  pleasure,  hath  pre- 
scribed for  their  salvation,  they  are  guilty  of  re- 
bellion against  their  Almighty  Law-giver,  and 
Judge ;  they  expose  themselves  to  the  awful  dis- 
pleasure of  that  Almighty  Jehovah,  who  will  not 
permit  his  institutions  to  be  condemned,  or  his 
authority  violated,  with  impunity."  This  from 
the  "  Meditation"  for  "  Saturday  evening."  p. 
202—204. 

As  we  have  quoted  the  passage,  rather  in  order 

to  connect  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to 
Vol.  III.  3 


1 8  Review 

the  "  collection"  immediately  under  review,  than 
to  subject  it  to  rigid  criticism ;  we  forbear  com- 
menting on  several  assertions,  in  maintaining 
which  the  reverend  writer,  if  a  little  pressed,  might 
perhaps  find  that  he  has  no  ingenuity  to  spare. 
We  now  consider  it  in  reference  to  the  subject  of 
the  "  Essays." 

Extravagant  as  such  pretensions  must  seem  to 
those  whose  convictions  are  of  a  different  sort, 
and  offensive  as  they  were  to  individuals  whose 
predilections  are  certainly  not  anti-episcopal,  no 
notice,  so  far  as  we  know,  was  taken  of  Mr. 
Hobart's  productions,  nor  any  thing  published  on 
the  other  side,  till  the  summer  of  1805.  Then  a 
writer,  generally  supposed  to  be  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Linn,  introduced  into  "the  Albany  Centinel,"  un- 
der the  head  of  "Miscellanies,  No.  ix."  some  free 
strictures  on  the  Episcopal  claims.  He  imme- 
diately met  with  an  antagonist  of  no  mean  pow- 
ers, under  the  signature  of  a  Layman  of  the  Epis- 
copal Churchy  who  is  understood  to  be  Thomas  Y. 
How,  Esq.  To  the  aid  of  the  latter  came  the 
Rev.  Frederick  Beasley,  Rector  of  St.  Peter's 
Church,  Albany,  with  the  venerable  name  of  Cy- 
prian. Clemens^  or  Dr.  L.  himself,  shortly  appear- 
ed in  favour  of  the  Miscellanist ;  as  the  battle 
waxed  sore,  the  band  of  the  hierarchy  was  joined 
by  two  right  reverend  prelates,  the  one  from  this 
state,  as  Cornelius  ;  the  other  from  Pennsylvania, 
as  an  Episcopalian ;  together  with  Mr.  (now  Dr.) 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  19 

HoBART  himself,  in  the  twofold  form  of  Detector 
and  Vindex  ;  while  the  Miscellanist  re-appeared  in 
the  characters  of  Umpire  and  an  Inquirer.  By  the 
forces  thus  marshalled,  five  against  one,  the  war- 
fare was  protracted  till  the  public  grew  weary, 
and  the  printer  interposed  to  effect  an  armistice. 
However,  that  the  record  and  the  fruits  of  so  me- 
morable a  campaign  might  not  be  lost,  the  Rev 
Mr.  HoBART  did  not  think  it  a  misapplication  of 
his  time,  nor  a  disservice  to  his  church,  to  gather 
the  pieces  of  both  parties,  and  republish  them  in 
a  separate  volume  with  a  preface,  annotations, 
and  comments  of  his  own.  We,  accordingly, 
take  up  the  "  collection"  as  it  came  from  his 
hands. 

We  have  heard  a  suggestion  of  unfairness  in 
this  transaction.  We  do  not  see  how  the  charge 
can  be  supported,  unless  the  writers  on  the  Epis- 
copal side  have  been  permitted  to  alter  and  amend 
their  essays  without  extending  the  same  privilege 
to  their  opponents.  The  modification  of  a  single 
paragraph  may  cover  with  ridicule  the  most  for- 
cible argument  which  was  directed  against  it 
befoi^e  the  modification,  and  would  insult  the  reader 
by  imposing  upon  him  something  which  was  not 
the  subject  of  remark.  Of  so  degrading  an 
artifice  no  reputable  man  ought  to  be  lightly  sus- 
pected. As  we  have  no  such  suspicion,  and  as 
this  alone  could  justify  a  charge  of  unfairness,  we 
do  not  see  that  Mr.  H.  is  at  all  reprehensible  for 


20  Review. 

republishing  a  set  of  essays  which  had  been  thrown 
upon  the  world  without  any  pecuniary  restriction, 
and  accompanying  them  with  such  criticism  as 
he  deemed  just. 

Mr.  H.  observes  in  his  preface,  that "  the  friends 
of  the  church  and  of  Episcopacy,  however  reluct- 
ant to  discuss  an  important  religious  topic  in  a 
public  paper,  were  compelled  to  resort  to  the 
same  mode,  for  defence,  which  the  author  ot 
Miscellanies  had  chosen  for  his  attack."  We  la 
ment,  as  sincerely  as  themselves,  that  a  JYewspa- 
per  was  selected  for  such  a  discussion.  We  la- 
mented it  from  the  first.  We  never  flattered  our- 
selves that  it  would  operate  with  a  favourable 
influence  either  on  the  cause  of  truth,  or  on  the 
social  feeling  of  the  community. 

But  when  Mr.  H.  and  the  Layman^  and  Cyprian, 
all  complain  of  being  assaulted  in  the  peaceful 
exercise  of  a  common  right,  and  thus  endeavour 
to  throw  the  odium  of  aggression  upon  the  author 
of  "Miscellanies,"  it  is  rather  over-acting.  To 
exclude  all  non-episcopalians  from  "  the  church 
which  the  Redeemer  purifies  by  his  blood,  and 
quickens  by  his  Spirit," — to  pronounce  all  their 
ministrations  « irregular  and  invahd," — to  charge 
them  with  «  great  guilt"  and  threaten  them  with 
"  imminent  danger,"  for  "  neghgently  or  wilfully 
continuing  in  a  state  of  separation"  from  the 
episcopal  church — to  represent  them  as  "  wilfully 
Tending  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church ;  as 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  21 

obstinately  contemning  the  means  which  God 
hath  appointed  for  their  salvation ;"  as  "  guilty  of 
rebelUon  against  their  Almighty  Law-giver,  and 
Judge," — to  publish  all  this  to  the  world;  and 
then  most  gravely  to  tell  these  same  non-episco- 
palians, that  there  is  no  attack  upon  them ;  but 
only  a  little  wholesome  admonition  for  the  edifi- 
cation of  devout  episcopalians  on  the  evening  be- 
fore the  Holy  Communion  !  and,  moreover,  to  put 
on  a  lofty  air,  and  break  out  into  angry  rebuke, 
toward  those  who  are  not  satisfied  with  their  ex- 
planation, is  really  an  improvement  in  polemical 
finesse.  But  hold !  let  us  look  again  at  these 
pretty  figures  of  rhetoric,  by  which  thunderbolts, 
hurled  at  the  heads  of  opponents,  are  converted 
into  the  gentle  dews  of  instruction  and  consola- 
tion to  friends — Schismatics,  usurpers,  renders  of 
the  church's  unity,  rebels  against  their  Almighty 
Law-giver  ! — Verily,  if  this  is  no  attack  upon  non- 
episcopalians,  it  is  so  like  one,  that  we  need  a 
shrewd  interpreter  at  our  elbow,  to  prevent  our 
mistaking  it.  "  I  never,"  said  Jack,  of  Lord  Pe- 
ter's brown  bread,  "  saw  a  piece  of  mutton  in  my 
fife,  so  nearly  resembhng  a  slice  from  a  twelve- 
penny  loaf ! !" 

If  Mr.  H.  had  intended  an  attack  upon  the  an- 
ti-episcopal denominations,  in  what  manner  could 
he  have  made  it  ?  Not  by  assailing  them  individ- 
ually in  the  street :  not  by  entering  their  houses 
and  reading  them  a  lecture  on  schism :  not  even 


22  Review. 

by  preaching  against  them  in  his  own  place  of 
worship :  for  this  would  be  "  instructing  his  own 
people ;"  and  if  any  others  should  happen  to  stroll 
in,  he  could  not  help  that,  more  than  he  could 
hinder  their  buying  and  reading  his  books  ;*  which, 
according  his  own  account,  he  neither  desired 
nor  expected.  It  is  the  dictate  of  common  sense 
that  if  an  author  print  and  publish  severe  reflec- 
tions upon  any  body  of  men,  he  not  only  attacks 
them,  but  does  it  in  the  most  open  manner  possi- 
ble. If  one  of  our  citizens  should  write  and  ad- 
vertise in  the  Gazettes,  a  pamphlet,  calling  all  the 
members  of  the  community,  but  those  of  his  own 
sect,  traitors  and  rebels  to  the  government,  would 
Mr.  H.  or  any  body  else,  comprehended  in  the 
charge,  be  satisfied  with  such  an  apology  as  this  ; 
«  You,  have  no  right,  sir,  to  be  offended  with  any 
part  of  my  pamphlet.  It  is  true,  I  have  called  you 
a  rebel  and  a  traitor,  but  you  should  not  construe 
these  epithets  into  an  attack  upon  you ;  for  the 
least  candour  will  enable  you  to  perceive  that  I 
published  my  pamphlet  for  the  exclusive  use  of 
my  own  connexions  .^"  Would  this,  we  ask,  con- 
vince Mr.  H.  or  any  one  else,  and  send  him  home 
perfectly  satisfied  to  be  denounced,  as  a  rebel 
and  a  traitor,  so  often  as  a  zealous  partisan  might 
judge  it  conducive  to  the  edification  of  his  own 
particular  friends.'^  We  believe  not.  Neither 
will  the  non-episcopalians  be  satisfied  with  Mr. 
H's.  apology  for  himself      They  will  probably 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  23 

view  it  as  a  stratagem,  and  not  a  very  deep  one, 
to  avoid  the  unpopularity  of  appearing  as  the  ag- 
gressor. Some  of  them,  too,  may  consider  Mr. 
H's.  books  as  the  continuance  of  a  system  of  at- 
tack which  commenced  several  years  ago,  when 
a  certain  preacher  declared  to  the  faces  of  some 
of  the  most  venerable  ministers  in  this  city,  that 
all  clergymen  not  episcopally  ordained,  are  im- 
postors ;  their  commissions,  forgeries  ;  and  their 
sacraments,  blasphemy.* 

These  aspersions  raised  a  great  clamour  at  the 
time ;  and  the  repetition  of  them  by  Mr.  H.  and 

*  The  preacher  was  Mr.  Wright  ;  the  place,  St.  Paul's  church  ; 
the  occasion,  a  deacon's  ordination ;  and  the  text,  of  which,  to 
use  his  own  words,  he  "  took  leave,"  in  order  to  give  the  poor 
non-episcopalians  a  hit,  that  injunction  of  our  Lord,  "5e  ye  ivise 
as  serpents,  and  harmless  as  doves."  That  the  orator  was  right  in 
taking  this  "  leave,"  will  hardly  be  questioned,  as  he  immediately 
broke  through  the  second  precept  of  his  text ;  and  the  consequences 
proved  that  he  had  but  little  skill  in  the  first.  The  effusion  had 
more  of  every  thing  in  the  serpent,  than  his  wisdom  *,  and  more 
of  every  thing  in  the  dove,  than  her  innocence. 

A  circumstance  which  rendered  the  attack  an  outrage,  was  the 
care  of  the  episcopal  clergy  to  circulate  notice  of  the  ordination, 
and  their  solicitude  for  the  attendance  of  their  non-episcopal 
brethren!  One  of  the  latter,  who  was  present,  remarked,  at  the 
close  of  the  service,  with  the  pith  and  point  of  indignant  feeling, 
that  "Mr.  W.  possessed  a  large  stock  of  confidence,  to  tell  his 
bishop  to  his  face,  that  he  was  an  unregenerated  man,  and  no 
member  of  the  Christian  church !"  It  being  well  known  that  the 
Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Samuel,  bishop  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  New-York,  had  been  baptized 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dubois,  one  of  the  ministers  of  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church.     Therefore,— &c.     Alas  !  Alas ! 


24  R 


eview. 


others,  though  in  more  decent  language,  has  been 
loudly  censured,  as  a  violation  of  all  the  rules  of 
prudence  and  charity.  Of  their  prudence  we  say 
nothing.  And  the  offence  against  charity  is  not 
the  point  of  difficulty  with  us.  Nor  do  we  think 
that  the  author  of  "  Miscellanies,"  in  declaiming 
against  episcopal  "  bigotry  and  superstition,"  has 
taken  the  question  by  the  proper  handle.  These 
are,  at  best,  ungracious  compliments,  which, 
though  they  may  vent  the  ire  of  the  writer,  contri- 
bute little  to  the  emolument  of  the  reader;  and 
are  generally  repaid  with  good  will,  and  with  large 
interest.  Truth,  can  admit  of  no  compromise 
with  error,  nor  does  charity  require  it.  They  are 
the  truly  charitable  who  point  out  the  way  of  life, 
and  warn  their  fellow  men  of  dangerous  mistake. 
Therefore  we  shall  neither  dispute  the  right  of  an 
Episcopahan  to  publish  his  peculiar  sentiments, 
nor  when  they  happen  to  bear  hard  upon  others, 
shall  we  cry  out  against  their  uncharitableness. 
Our  concern  is  with  their  truth  or  falsehood. 
And  as  we  are  far  from  impeaching  the  sincerity 
of  Mr.  H.  and  his  coadjutors,  whatever  we  may 
think  of  their  discretion ;  so  our  criticisms  are 
intended  to  apply  to  them  solely  as  authors.  For 
their  personal  characters,  we  entertain  unfeigned 
respect.  Nor  can  we  be  justly  charged  with  vio- 
lating that  respect,  though  we  examine  their  claim 
with  as  little  ceremony  as  they  have  brought  it 
forward.  If  the  errour  be  ours,  let  them  overwhelm 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  25 

our  darkness  with  the  effulgence  of  their  hght — if 
the  error  be  theirs,  God  forbid  that  any  human 
regards  should  prevail  with  us  to  pass  it  gently 
by.  With  the  imperial  Stoick,  we  "  aim  at  truths 
by  which  no  man  was  ever  injured."* 

They  tell  us  then,  that  their  "  priesthood"  is 
the  only  "  authorized  ministry" — that  the  church 
in  which  it  officiates,  is  the  only  one  in  covenant 
with  God — that  where  the  gospel  is  proclaimed, 
communion  with  this  church,  by  the  participation 
of  its  ordinances  at  the  hands  of  the  duly  autho- 
rized priesthood,  is  the  indispensable  condition  of 
salvation — that  whatever  mercy  may  be  extended 
to  those  who  labour  under  involuntary  errour,  such 
as  negligently  or  wilfully  continue  in  a  state  of  se- 
paration from  the  authorized  ministry  of  the 
church,  and  participate  of  ordinances  administer- 
ed by  an  irregular  and  invalid  authority,  are  guilty 
not  only  of  schism,  but  of  contempt  of  God's  in- 
stitutions ;  of  rebellion  against  his  government, 
and  of  exposing  themselves  to  his  awful  displea- 
sure. In  fewer  words,  their  doctrine  is,  that  non- 
episcopalians  are  no  part  of  the  Christian  church; 
but  are  "  children  of  wrath,"  and  without  a  single 
hope  founded  on  covenanted  mercy.  No  "  re- 
pentance toward  God;"  no  "  faith  toward  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;"  no  conformity  to  his  image  ; 
no  zeal  for  his  glory,  can  be  of  any  avail.     The 

ZriTW  Tv/v  aXrfii\a\i  btp'  rig  mhzii  <n'uitoTS  l/SXSjSr). — Mar.  Anton. 
Lib.  I.  c.  21.  p,  50.  ed.  Gatakeri. 
Vol.  III.  4 


26  R 


evtew. 


simple  fact  of  their  separation  from  the  "  autho- 
rized," that  is  to  say,  from  the  episcopal  "  priest- 
hood," mars  their  religion,  and  renders  it  stark 
naught ! 

This  sweeping  sentence  of  proscription  is  soft- 
ened by  representing  it  as  "  not  inconsistent 
with  that  charity  which  extends  mercy  to  all  who 
labour  under  involuntary  errour."  But  the  relief 
is  not  worth  accepting.  For  in  the^r^^  place,  so 
much  is  necessary  to  constitute  "  involuntary^^''  or 
as  it  is  elsewhere  called,  "  unavoidable,''''  errour, 
that  the  instances  in  which  the  plea  should  be  sub- 
stantiated would  be  rare  indeed.  Access  to  means 
of  instruction  precludes  it  effectually.  And  as 
there  are  few  districts  where  this  question  can  be 
agitated,  without  episcopalians,  or  their  priests,  or 
their  writings,  the  errour  must  almost  always  be 
wilful ;  in  which  case  the  retreat  is  cut  off — and 
secondly,  we  have  no  ground  to  expect  even  this 
very  precarious  mercy,  but  the  charity  of  Mr.  H. 
and  his  brethren !  Warrant  from  the  word  of  God 
they  have  produced  none,  and  have  none  to  pro- 
duce. If  communion  with  the  authorized,  or  Epis- 
copal priesthood,  be  to  those  among  whom  the 
Gospel  is  proclaimed,  an  indispensable  condition 
of  salvation,  what  possible  escape  can  be  left  for 
those  who  reject  it?  The  very  idea  of  such  an 
escape,  however  to  be  effected,  is  repugnant  to 
that  of  an  indispensable  condition.  No  :  if  the  con- 
dition be  indispensable,  they   who  reject  it  must 


Kssays  on  Episcopacy.  27 

perish.  And  if  they  who  reject  it  may  still  be 
saved,  it  is  not  indispensable :  otherwise,  the  defi- 
nition might  run  thus,  aw  indispensable  condition  is 
that  which  may  be  dispensed  with  !  The  alternative 
then  is,  Episcopacy  or  perdition  !  !  Prove  this, 
and  there  is  but  one  way  for  us :  rush  into  the 
arms  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  sooner  the 
better  !  Prove  this,  and  for  our  part,  httle  as  we 
are  inclined  to  such  a  transition  at  present,  we 
will  take  refuge  immediately  in  her  communion ! 
He  is  a  fool  who  would  put  his  soul  in  jeopardy 
for  a  single  moment,  by  rejecting  an  "  indispen- 
sable condition  of  salvation ;"  and  risk  the  loss  of 
Heaven  upon  the  credit  of  the  charity  of  Mr.  H. 
and  Bishop  Horsley  !  !  We  are  sure  that  the 
drift,  and  have  little  doubt  that  the  design,  of  a 
number  of  Episcopal  publications  is  to  force  plain 
people  into  such  a  conclusion. 

But  before  the  authors  can  be  justified  in  utter- 
ing a  syllable  which  only  looks  toward  such  a  con- 
clusion, they  ought  to  be  perfectly  certain  of  their 
premises.  To  unchurch,  with  a  dash  of  the  pen, 
all  the  non-episcopal  denominations  under  Hea- 
ven ;  and  cast  their  members,  indiscriminately, 
into  a  condition  worse  than  that  of  the  very  Hea- 
then, is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  a  most  dreadful  ex- 
communication; and  if  not  clearly  enjoined  by  the 
authority  of  God,  as  criminal  as  it  is  dreadful. 
That  all  those  glorious  churches  which  have 
flourished  in  Geneva,  Holland,  France,  Scotland, 


28  Revieiv. 

England,  Ireland,  &c.  since  the  reformation ;  and 
all  which  have  spread,  and  are  spreading  through 
this  vast  continent — that  those  heroes  of  the  truth, 
who,  though  they  bowed  not  to  the  mitre,  rescued 
millions  from  the  man  of  sin,  lighted  up  the  lamp 
of  genuine  religion,  and  left  it,  burning  with  a  pure 
and  steady  flame  to  the  generation  follov/ing — 
that  all  those  faithful  ministers,  and  all  those  pri- 
vate christians,  who,  though  not  of  the  hierarchy, 
adorned  the  doctrine  of  God  their  Saviour,  living 
in  faith,  dying  in  faith ;  scores,  hundreds,  thousands 
of  them  going  away  to  their  father's  house  under 
the  strong  consolations  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  with 
anticipated  heaven  in  their  hearts,  and  its  hallelu- 
jahs on  their  lips — that  all,  all  were  without  the 
pale  of  the  visible  church ;  were  destitute  of  cove- 
nanted grace;  and  left  the  world  without  any 
chance  for  eternal  life,  but  that  unpledged,  unpro- 
mised  mercy  which  their  accusers  charitably  hope 
may  be  extended  to  such  as  labour  under  involun- 
tary or  unavoidable  errour ;  and  this  merely  be- 
cause they  renounced  Episcopacy — are  positions 
of  such  deep-toned  horrour  as  may  well  make  our 
hair  stand  up,  "like  quills  upon  the  fretful  por- 
cupine ;"  and  freeze  the  warm  blood  at  its  foun- 
tain. We  say  this  sentance  has  been  pronounced 
upon  milhons  of  the  dead  and  of  the  living,  merely 
because  they  were  not,  or  are  not.  Episcopal.  For 
Mr.  H.  and  his  friends  have  declared  in  substance, 
what  their  famous  Dodwell  has  declared  in  form. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  29 

that,  "  the  alone  want  of  communion  with  the  bishop, 
makes  persoris  aliens  from  God  and  Christ,  and  strang- 
ers from  the  covenants  of  promise^  and  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel  r*  '' 

We  shall  hardly  be  accused;of  transgressing  the 
bounds  of  moderation,  when  we  demand  for  such 
assertions,  proof  which  demolishes  cavil,  and  shuts 
the  mouth  of  reply.  And  if  their  authors  cannot 
produce  it ;  if  they  be  not  ready  with  demonstra- 
tion, such  as  shall  make  "  assurance  double  sure," 
they  must  abide  the  consequences  of  their  te- 
merity. 

What  the  nature  of  their  proof  is,  and  how  it 
will  bear  them  out,  we  shall  enable  the  reader  to 
judge  before  we  finish  this  review.  We  pause  to 
make  two  observations. 

1.  The  writers  with  whom  we  have  to  do,  lay 
upon  the  form  of  church  government  a  stress 
which  is  not  laid  upon  it  in  the  word  of  God.  We 
are  far  from  insinuating  that  the  question  is  of 
small  moment;  we  are  persuaded,  on  the  contrary, 
that  it  is  of  great  moment ;  and  that  Christians 
are  chargeable  with  much  sin  for  the  indifference 
which  prevails  among  them  concerning  it.  We 
can  never  grant  that  the  appointments  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  may  be  innocently  neglected;  nor 

*  That  M.  H.  treads  closely  after  Dodwell,  see  "  Comjmnion 
for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,^'  p.  59.  And  that  the  author  of  "  me- 
raorial  of  the  late  Bishop  Hobart,"  if  a  judgment  may  be  drawn  from 
his  remerks  upon  these  Essays,  treads  equally  close.  See  "  me- 
morial." 


30  Review. 

that  any  one  is  excusable  for  not  endeavouring  to 
satisfy  himself  what  these  appointments  are.  But 
we  are  very  sure  that  particular  views  of  external 
church-order,  are  not  the  hinging  point  of  salva- 
tion. Whether  a  man  shall  go  to  heaven  or  to 
hell,  will  be  decided  by  another  inquiry  than  whe- 
ther he  was  an  Episcopalian,  a  Presbyterian,  or 
an  Independent.  The  scriptures  have  fixed  that 
inquiry  to  this  point,  whether  he  was  a  believer 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  or  not  }  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized.,  shall  be  saved :  and  he  that  believeth 
not.,  shall  be  damned.  Again.  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.^  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.  The  reverse 
is,  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already,  because 
he  hath  not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only  begotten 
son  of  God.  According  to  these  passages,  faith 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  as  he  is  exhibited  in  the  Gospel, 
is  "the  indispensable  condition  of  salvation." — 
According  to  Mr.  H.  and  his  compeers,  partici- 
pation of  Christian  ordinances  at  the  hands  of  the 
Episcopal  priesthood,  is  the  indispensable  condi- 
tion of  salvation.  We  are  not  ignorant  that  in 
other  sections  of  his  book,  Mr.  li.  dwells  with  in- 
terest and  force,  on  the  necessity  of  a  living  and 
productive  faith.  We  are  glad  to  see  so  many 
things  in  a  strain  much  more  evangelical  than 
pervades  most  of  the  ministrations  in  his  church. 
But  this  inspires  us  with  the  deeper  regret  on  ac- 
count of  the  "  dead  flies"  among  the  precious 
"  ointment."     Nor  can  we  suppress  our  convic- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  31 

tion,  that  in  representing  an  adherence  to  Episco- 
pacy as  "  the  indispensable  condition  of  salvation," 
himself,  and  Daubeny,  and  a  legion  more,  have 
done  much  toward  misleading  men's  niinds  as  to 
the  foundation  of  eternal  hope.  That  which 
wounds  the  bosom  of  tender  piety,  and  of  which 
we  utterly  deny  the  correctness,  is  their  placing 
the  external  order  of  the  church  upon  a  level  with 
the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  in  the  article  of  ac- 
ceptance before  God.  We  are  positively  told  that 
soundness  in  the  former  is  "  the  indispensable 
condition  of  salvation ;"  and  faith  in  the  latter 
cannot  possibly  be  any  more.  Nay,  with  respect 
to  non-episcopalians.  Episcopacy  is.  o^  primary, 
and  faith  in  the  Redeemer  of  secondary,  impor- 
tance :  for  we  are  told  again,  that  "  whoever  is  in 
communion  with  the  bishop,  the  supreme  Governor 
of  the  church  upon  earth,  is  in  communion  with 
Christ  the  head  of  it ;  and  whoever  is  not  in  com- 
munion with  the  bishop,  is  thereby  cut  off  from 
communion  with  Christ :"  and  this  is  said  to  be  a 
"  general  conclusion"  "  established"  by  "  the  imi- 
/orm  testimony  of  ALL  the  apostolic  and  primitive 
writers."*  After  perusing  the  paragraph,  we  were 
held  in  suspense  between  the  gaze  of  astonish- 
ment and  the  swell  of  indignation.  Why,  he  who 
is  acquainted  with  facts  well  knows;  these  gen- 

*  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  59.  from  Daubeny. 
Qiiere.  How  many  bow-shots  are  such  writers  off  from  the  terri- 
tory of  "  our  sovereign  Lord  the  Pope  ?" 


32  Review. 

tlemen  ought  to  know  j  and,  in  due  season,  others 
whom  it  concerns  shall  know.  The  meaning  is 
not  obscure.  There  is  no  access  to  communion 
with  Christ,  but  through  communion  with  the 
bishop.  Yet,  Mr.  H.  himself  being  judge,  true 
faith  vitally  unites  its  possessor  to  the  Redeemer  ;* 
and  in  this  "  vital  union"  originates  all  commu- 
nion with  him.  If,  therefore,  faith  in  Christ  pro- 
duces communion  with  him,  and  this  communion 
is  inaccessible  but  through  the  medium  of  the 
bishop,  it  follows  that  faith  in  Christ  is  impossible 
where  there  is  no  communion  with  the  bishop : 
and  that  all  non-episcopalians  are,  of  necessity, 
infidels.  And  thus  our  position  is  proved,  that 
Episcopacy  is  held  up  as  of  primary,  and  faith  in 
Christ  as  of  secondary,  importance.  For  as  both 
are  "  indispensable  conditions  of  salvation,"  that 
one  upon  which  the  existence  of  the  other  de- 
pends, must  be  the  more  important  of  the  two. 
And  this  is  not  an  example  of  that  sort  of  priority 
which  obtains  in  the  relation  of  means  to  ends  ;  the 
use  of  the  former  preceding  the  attainment  of  the 
latter  ;  so  that  the  end,  which  is  the  greater,  pre- 
supposes and  follows  the  means,  which  are  the 
less.  The  case  before  us,  we  say,  is  not  of  this 
sort :  because  we  have  access  to  the  testimony  of 
God,  which  must  be  believed  in  order  to  salva- 
tion, without  going  through  the  gate  of  Episco- 

*  Companion  for  the  Altar ;  meditation  for  Thursday. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  33 

pacy.  It  may  be  urged,  that  faith  in  Christ  in- 
cludes the  principle  of  obedience  to  his  institu- 
tions ;  and  therefore  to  resist  them,  is  to  show  the 
want  of  that  obedience  which  flows  from  faith. 
Doubtless  the  faith  of  Christ  does  include  such  a 
principle.  But  this  no  more  proves  particular 
views  of  church  order,  than  it  proves  particular 
views  of  any  thing  else  which  is  regulated  by 
Christ's  authority,  to  be  the  "  indispensable  con- 
dition of  salvation."  Habitual  disobedience  to 
any  of  his  known  commands  will  exclude  from 
his  kingdom.  Yet  there  are  sins  both  of  ignorance 
and  infirmity  which  consist  with  a  gracious  state. 
And  why  an  errour  about  church-government  is 
not  to  be  classed  among  these,  the  Bible  has  as- 
signed no  reason.  And  if  the  high  church-men 
will  push  their  own  doctrine,  it  will  compel  them 
to  excommunicate  each  other  in  their  turn.  For 
it  is  no  secret  that  there  have  been  material  dif- 
ferences among  them  on  their  favourite  theme  : 
and  nothing  can  exceed  their  confusion  and  mu- 
tual contradiction,  when  they  attempt  to  found 
their  hierarchy  on  the  scriptures. 

At  times,  we  acknowledge,  they  concede  the 
possibility  of  "  penitence"  and  a  "  true  faith"  out 
of  their  church,  for  it  is  upon  this  concession  that 
they  rest  their  charity  for  the  non-episcopalian. 
But  as  their  concession  is  in  diametrical  repug- 
nance to  their  argument,  it  only  lets  us  see  that 

Vol.  III.  3 


34  Revieiv^ 

they  flinch  from,  the  consequences  of  their  own 
doctrine. 

Upon  the  wliole,  we  have  the  best  evidence 
that  they  lay  an  unwarrantable  stress  upon  the 
form  of  ecclesiastical  order,  by  erecting  commu- 
nion with  their  priesthood  into  an  "  indispensable 
condition  of  salvation."  The  alarm  which  they 
have  sounded  on  this  subject,  is  vox  ct  pneierea 
nihil,  mere  noise ;  and  need  give  no  disquiet  to  the 
most  timid  conscience. 

2.  Our  next  observation  is,  that  as  Mr.  H.  and 
his  fellows  have  denied  all  communion  with 
Christ,  to  non-episcopalians  they  are  bound  to 
show,  that  there  is  at  least,  more  of  the  truth  and 
efficacy  of  the  gospel  in  the  Episcopal  church 
than  in  all  other  connexions.  This  is  not  draw- 
ing invidious  comparisons  between  Christian  de- 
nominations, but  on  their  own  principles,  a  per- 
fectly fair  comparison  between  the  church  of 
Christ  and  a  set  of  associations  which  do  not  be- 
long to  it.  We  shall  account  it  no  hard  task  to 
prove  as  much  of  the  church  of  Christ  according 
to  our  views ;  nor  ought  they.  For  assuredly,  if 
there  is  not  within  his  church  much  more  of 
power  and  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind ;"  much 
more  of  the  fear  of  God;  of  "receiving  Christ 
Jesus  the  Lord"  and  "walking  in  him;"  of^ rever- 
ential attendance  upon  his  worship;  of  domestic 
and  personal  godliness  ;  in  one  word,  much  more 
of  the  spiritual  hfe,  and  of  that  "  holiness  without 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  35 

which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord;"  if  much  more 
of  these  things  be  not  found  imthin  his  church 
than  without  it,  "  what  doth  it  profit  ?"  Will  Mr. 
H.  meet  the  ordeal  ?  Will  he  accompany  us  from 
temple  to  temple,  from  pulpit  to  pulpit,  from  house 
to  house,  from  closet  to  closet,  and  agree,  that  in 
proportion  as  there  is  little  or  much  of  "  pure  and 
undefiled  religion"  in  them,  their  grade  in  the 
scale  of  Christian  churches  shall  be  low  or  high  ? 
Is  it,  then,  a  fact,  that  in  the  church  Avhich  boasts 
of  the  only  valid  ministrations,  and  the  exclusive 
prerogative  of  being  in  covenant  with  God,  there 
is  more  evangelical  preaching;  more  of  Christ 
crucified ;  more  plain,  close,  decisive  dealing  with 
the  consciences  of  men,  upon  the  things  which 
belong  to  their  peace,  than  in  many  of  the  chur- 
ches which  she  affects  to  despise  ?  Is  it  a  fact, 
that  her  "  authorized  priesthood"  are  more  scru- 
pulous about  the  preservation  of  pure  communion; 
that  they  object  more  strongly  to  the  admission 
of  mere  men  of  the  world ;  and  are  more  active 
in  excluding  from  their  fellowship  the  openly  irre- 
ligious, than  are  others  ?  Is  it  a  fact,  that  they 
adopt  more  prompt  and  vigorous  measures  to 
expel  from  their  pulpits  doctrine  which  flies  in  the 
face  of  their  avowed  principles,  and  is  acknowl- 
edged by  themselves  to  be  subversive  of  the  Chris- 
tian system  ?  Is  it  a  fact,  that  in  this  "  primitive 
Apostohc"  church,  the  sheep  of  Christ  and  his 
iambs  are  more  plentifully  fed  with  "  the  bread  of 


36  R 


eview. 


God  which  came  down  from  heaven  ?"  Or  that 
she  has  less  to  attract  the  thoughtless  gay,  and 
more  to  allure  those  who  become  seriously  con- 
cerned about  their  eternal  salvation,  than  is  to  be 
found  in  hundreds  of  churches  which  she  virtually 
"  delivers  unto  Satan  ?"  Are  these  facts  ?  We 
appeal  to  them  who  have  eyes  to  see,  and  ears  to 
hear ;  especially  to  them  who  "  have  tasted  that 
the  Lord  is  gracious."  The  interrogatories  and 
the  appeal  are  extremely  painful :  but  we  are  driven 
to  them  by  the  champions  of  the  hierarchy,  who 
appropriate  communion  with  Christ  to  their  own 
connexions.  We,  therefore,  put  them  upon  their 
trial  before  the  bar  of  scripture,  of  conscience, 
and  of  public  criticism.  We  demand  the  evidence 
of  their  exclusive  fellowship  with  the  Redeemer ; 
we  demand  it  for  our  own  sakes  -,  we  insist  upon 
their  showing,  according  to  his  word,  the  superi- 
ority of  their  practical  rehgion  both  in  quantity 
and  quality.  If  they  cannot  or  will  not  answer,  no 
rational  man  will  be  at  a  loss  for  the  reason. 

An  Episcopal  church  we  do  know,  in  which 
there  are  hundreds  of  ministers,  and  thousands  of 
their  people,  who  are  "valiant  for  the  truth j" 
who  exemplify  in  their  own  persons  the  loveliness 
of  the  Christian  character,  and  who,  with  respect 
to  themselves,  will  never  shrink  from  the  strictest 
investigation.  Would  to  God,  we  could  say  as 
much  for  all  non-episcopalians !  But  these  mem- 
bers of  that  church  who  give,  in  "  the  fruits  of 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  37 

righteousness,"  unequivocal  proof  that  the  "  Spirit 
of  Christ  is  in  them,"  are  not  the  persons  who 
advance  or  defend  such  claims  as  are  set  up  by 
Messrs.  Daubeny  and  Hobart.^"*  On  the  contrary, 
they  most  cordially  welcome  to  their  bosoms,  as 
heirs  with  themselves  of  the  grace  of  life,  all  those 
"  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity :" 
and  they  are  hated,  reviled,  persecuted,  by  those 
very  same  high  churchmen,  who,  hke  Mr.  H.  and 
his  friends  are  for  confining  the  covenant  of  sal- 
vation to  their  own  precincts. 

We  have  reached  only  the  threshold  of  the 
work  which  we  proposed  to  enter  and  examine. 
But  if  we  have  detained  the  reader  with  prelimi- 
nary matter,  it  is  because  we  could  not  do  justice 
to  the  subject  without  it.  He  fs  now  in  posses- 
sion of  facts  and  reasonings  to  show  that  the 
actual  discussions  relative  to  Episcopacy,  are  not 
to  be  classed  with  those  wrangles  of  party  which 
amuse  ignorant  zealots,  and -disgrace  sober  in- 
quiry. Nothing  less  is  agitated  than  the  question 
whether  as  non-episcopalians,  we  are  to  walk  in 
the  "faith  of  the  gospel,"  in  "joy  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  and  with  a  "  hope  that  maketh  not 
ashamed;"  or  be  shut  up  under  condemnation, 
reprobated  by  God  and  man  ?  As  we  did  not  be- 
gin the  controversy ;  nor  engage  in  it  till  after 
long  forbearance  under  multiphed  provocation ; 
and  not  even  then,  till  we  felt  ourselves  called 
upon,  by  an  imperious  sense  of  duty,  to  vindicate 


38  Review. 

the  perverted  truth,  and  the  absurd  ordinances, 
of  our  master  in  Heaven;  so,  having  begun,  we 
shall  not  desist  until  we  shall  have  exposed  those 
arrogant  pretensions,  and  fallacious  reasonings, 
which  are  calculated  to  distress  and  deceive  the 
hearts  of  the  simple. 

Mr.  H.  in  his  preface  to  this  collection,  assures 
the  reader  that, 

"  The  author  of  Miscellanies  has,  with  great  industry,  col- 
lected together  all  the  ai'guments  against  Episcopacy."  p.  iv. 

We  apprehend  that  Mr.  H's  zeal,  in  this  para- 
graph, has  outstripped  his  caution.  A  man  pro- 
fesses to  have  a  very  extensive  and  accurate  ac- 
quaintance with  a  subject,  when  he  pledges  him- 
self to  the  public,  that  "  all  the  arguments"  on 
either  side  of  a^estion  relating  to  it,  arc  con- 
tained in  a  work  which  he  has  written  or  edited. 
And  if  the  work  be  defective,  especially  in  mate- 
rial points,  he  subjects  himself  to  comments  jnost 
mortifying  to  his  own  feelings,  most  painful  to  his 
friends,  and  not  desirable  even  to  his  opponents. 
We,  therefore,  think,  and  others  may  think  with 
us  before  we  shall  have  done,  that  Mr.  H.  ought 
not  to  have  committed  his  reputation  to  the  con- 
sequences of  such  an  assertion.  His  reserve  ought 
to  have  been  the  greater,  as  he  has  taken  some 
pains  to  invite  an  examination  of  his  scholarship. 
This  en  passant.     To  the  book  itself 

"  The  question  of  Episcopacy,"  says  the  Lay- 
man in  his  9th  number,  "  is  a  question  of  fact,  to 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  30 

be  determined  by  a  sound  interpretation  of  the 
sacred  volume."  We  join  issue  with  him ;  and 
not  only  consent,  but  insist,  that  the  question  shall 
be  decided  by  the  scripture  alone.  We  detract 
not  from  the  respect  due  to  the  primitive  fathers, 
nor  decline  to  meet  their  testimony,  as  we  shall 
show  in  proper  season.  But  in  fixing  the  sense  of 
the  scripture,  their  authority  is  of  no  more  weight 
with  us  than  the  authority  of  other  uninspired 
men  ;  that  is,  we  regard  not  their  opinion  any 
further  than  as  it  is  supported  by  the  stren'gth  of 
their  reasonings.  The  written  word  is  ^le  perfect 
and  exclusive  rule  of  our  faith.  It  would  be  so, 
had  not  a  shred  of  Christian  antiquity  survived 
the  ravages  of  time.  And  if  all  the  fathers  from 
Barnabas  to  Bernard,  had  agr*d  in  reckoning 
among  the  institutions  of  Christ,  any  thing  which 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  statute  book  of  his  own 
kingdom,  it  should  be  no  article  of  our  creed ;  and 
should  have  no  more  sway  in  our  conscience  than 
an  assertion  of  the  Layman  hMnsetf,  or  of  his  cle- 
rical friends.  This  being  understood,  let  us  see 
how  the  lines  of  evidence  run. 

The  author  of  "  miscellanies"  had,  in  No.  X. 
argued  the  identity  of  presbyters  and  bishops 
from  the  indiscriminate  use  which  the  scripture 
makes  of  these  official  terms.  His  antagonists 
flout  at  this  argument,  with  all  imaginable  con- 
tempt, through  every  part  of  the  discussion.  It  is 
"  hterally,"  say  they,  "  good  for  nothing :"  '•  too 


40  Review. 

feeble  to  merit  a  serious  reply."  It  is  "  wretched 
sophistry" — "  the  old  and  miserable  sophistry  of 
names."  But  wherein  does  the  sophistry  con- 
sist }  Why  Paul  is  called  an  "  elder  ;"  therefore 
the  Presbyterian  argument  would  prove  that  Paul 
was  no  more  than  a  presbyter.  Christ  himself  is 
called  (Jiaxovos^  diaconos,  which  is  translated  a  "  mi- 
nister," a  "  deacon ;"  therefore  the  Presbyterian 
argument  would  prove,  that  Christ  was  no  higher 
than  a  deacon. 

"  Fresbuteros"  ('n'^sgQvrs ^og)  "  signifies  an  elder  man;  whence 
comes  the  term  Alderman.  By  this  new  species  of  logic," 
(which,  hy  tite  icay,  is  at  least  inore  than  1400  years  old,)  "  it 
might  be  proved,"  saith  the  Layman,  "  that  the  apostles  were, 
to  all  intents  and  purposes,  Aldermen,  in  the  civil  acceptation 
of  the  term ;  and  that  every  Alderman  is  really  and  truly  an 
Apostle."  p.  52,  534^ 

If  this  argument  is  correct,  the  Presbyterians 
show  very  small,  no  doubt.  And  the  Layman  is 
not  to  blame  for  stigmatizing  it  as  "  wretched 
sophistry."  "  The  miserable  sophistry  of  names." 
Yet  the  reader  may  be  induced  to  pause,  when  he 
is  told  that  men  of  singular  acuteness,  learning, 
candour,  penetration,  and  force  of  mind,  have 
considered  this  self-same  argument,  when  fairly 
stated,  as  altogether  unanswerable.  There  may 
perhaps,  be  some  policy  in  trying  to  run  it  down 
with  hard  words  ;  for  the  Layman  acknowledges, 
that  the  "  Episcopalians  would  give  up  their  cause 
at  once^  if  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  placing  it 
on  such  a  basis."  p.  56.     Here  the  secret  is  dis- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  41 

closed ;  if  the  argument  from  the  scriptural  use 
of  official  titles  is  valid,  down  goes  the  Hierarchy! 
Hinc  nice  lacrymcB  !  No  wonder  that  the  attempts 
are  so  incessant  to  scowl,  and  scoff,  and  laugh  it 
out  of  countenance.  It  will  not,  however,  be 
parted  with  so  easily ;  and  in  Ustening  to  a  good 
word  for  it,  the  reader  may  begin  to  think  it  pos- 
sible for  a  little  sophistry  to  trill  from  other  than 
Presbyterian  pens. 

In  examining  the  records  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, we  find  that  the  conversion  of  a  number  of 
individuals  to  the  Christian  faith,  was  followed  by 
their  organization  into  a  public  society  under  their 
proper  officers.  These  officers,  without  a  single 
exception^  are  distributed  into  the  two  general 
classes  of  presbyters  or  bishops^  gfhd  deacons  :  the 
former  presiding  over  the  spiritual,  and  the  latter 
over  the  temporal,  interests  of  their  respective 
charges.  This  distinction  is  marked  in  the  strong- 
est manner,  and  is  never  confounded.  Thus  to  the 
saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  are  at  Philippi  with  the 
BISHOPS  and  deacons — a  bishop  must  be  blameless — 
likewise  must  the  deacons  be  grave,  ^c. 

And  that  the  terms  bishop  ^n^ presbyter  in  their 
application  to  the  first  class  of  officers  are  per- 
fectly convertible,  the  one  pointing  out  the  very 
same  class  of  rulers  with  the  other,  is  as  evident  as 
the  sun  "  shining  in  his  strength."  Timothy  was 
instructed  by  the  apostle   Paul  in  the  quahties 

which  were  to  be  required  in  those  who  desired  the 
Vol.  III.  6 


42  Revi 


etc. 


office  of  a  BISHOP.*  Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained 
PRESBYTERS  in  evcvy  churck\  which  they  had  found- 
ed. Titus  is  directed  to  ordain  in  every  city  pres- 
byters who  are  to  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one 
wife.  And  the  reason  of  so  strict  a  scrutiny  into 
character  is  thus  rendered,  for  a  bishop  must  be 
blameless.^  If  this  does  not  identify  the  bishop  with 
\he  presbyter,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  what 
can  do  it  .'*  Suppose  a  law,  pointing  out  the  quali- 
fications of  a  sheriff  were  to  say,  a  sheriff  must  be 
a  man  of  pure  character,  of  great  activity,  and  re- 
solute spirit ;  for  it  is  highly  necessary  that  a  go- 
vernour  be  of  unspotted  reputation,  &c.  the  bench 
and  bar  would  be  rather  puzzled  for  a  construc- 
tion, and  would  be  compelled  to  conclude,  either 
that  something  had  been  left  out  in  transcribing 
the  law ;  or  that  governour  and  sheriff  meant  the 
same  sort  of  officer  ;  or  that  their  honours  of  the 
legislature  had  taken  leave  of  their  wits.  The 
case  is  not  a  whit  stronger  than  the  case  of  pres- 
byter and  bishop  in  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  Again  : 
Paul,  when  on  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  sends 
for  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus  to  meet  him  at 
Miletum  ;  and  there  enjoins  these  presbyters  to 
feed  the  church  of  God  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
made  them  bishops. ||  It  appears,  then,  that  the 
bishops  to  whom  Paul  refers  in  his  instructions  to 
Timothy,  were  neither  more  nor  less  than  plain 

*  1  Tim.  iii.  1.     f  Acts.  xiv.  23.     %  Tit.  i.  5.     ||  Act.  xx.  17.  28. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  43 

presbyters.  To  a  man  who  has  no  turn  to  serve  ; 
no  mterest  in  perverting  the  obvious  meaning  of 
words ;  one  would  think  that  a  mathematical  de- 
monstration could  not  carry  more  satisfactory 
evidence.  But  conclusive  as  it  would  be  in  every 
other  case,  it  is  in  this  case,  the  advocate  of  the 
Hierarchy  tells  us,  "  good  for  nothing,"  because 
Paul  is  called  an  "  elder,"  and  Christ  a  "  deacon" 
as  well  as  a  "  bishop,"  and,  therefore,  if  the  argu- 
ment proves  any  thing,  it  proves  that  neither  the 
apostles  nor  their  Lord,  were  any  higher  in  au- 
thority than  our  elders  and  deacons. 

May  we  ask  whether  "  bishop,"  "  presbyter," 
"  deacon,"  signify  any  thing  at  all  as  terms  of  of- 
fice, or  not  ?  If  they  do  not,  then  the  scripture  has 
used  a  parcel  of  words  and  names  relative  to 
church  government,  which  are  absolutely  without 
meaning.  This  will  not  be  said.  Something,  there- 
fore, and  something  official  too,  they  must  mean. 
We  ask  again,  whether  or  not  they  designate  pre- 
cisely any  particular  officers,  as  mayor.,  alderman., 
recorder.,  do  in  the  commonwealth  }  Or  whether, 
like  the  term  magistrate.,  they  merely  express  au- 
thority in  general ;  so  that  no  judgment  can  be 
formed  from  them  as  to  the  grade,  or  functions  of 
the  offices  to  which  they  are  annexed .''  If  the  for- 
mer, the  assailant  of  the  Hierarchy,  its  own  friends 
being  judges,  is  invincible,  and  their  citadel  is  laid 
in  the  dust.  Of  course,  they  prefer  the  latter ; 
and  insist  that  the  official  title  occurring  in  the 


44  Review. 

New  Testament,  can  afford  no  aid  in  ascertaining 
what  offices  Christ  hath  instituted  in  his  church. 
If  this  is  their  hope,  we  much  fear  that  it  is  a  for- 
lorn hope  indeed. 

If  our  question  be  not  troublesome,  we  would 
ask,  what  is  the  use  of  names  ?  Is  it  not  to  distin- 
guish objects  from  each  other  ?  To  prevent  the 
confusion  which  must  pervade  conversation  about 
nameless  things  }  And  to  facilitate  the  intercourse 
of  speech,  by  compressing  into  a  single  term, 
ideas  which,  without  that  expedient,  would  be 
protracted  through  descriptions  of  intolerable 
length  }  Now  if  there  are  not  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment appropriate  titles  of  office  which  distinguish 
the  several  officers  from  each  other,  there  could 
have  been  no  such  titles  in  use  at  the  time  when 
that  book  was  written }  For  it  would  surpass  the 
credulity  of  infidels  themselves,  to  imagine  that 
the  writers,  by  purposely  omitting  the  particular^ 
and  employing  only  the  general,  terms  of  office, 
would  throw  both  their  history  and  their  readers 
into  utter  confusion.  There  can  be  no  possible 
reason  for  omitting  terms  characteristic  of  the 
several  offices,  but  the  fact  that  no  such  terms  ex- 
isted. A  marvellous  phenomenon  this !  That  an 
immense  society  as  the  Christian  church  is,  should 
be  organized  under  its  proper  officers;  should 
ramify  itself  through  all  the  nations  of  the  earth ; 
should  have  every  one  of  its  branches  regularly  of- 
ficered ;  and  yet  be  destitute  of  names  by  which 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  45 

the  officers  might  be  correctly  known;  so  that 
when  an  official  term  was  mentioned,  no  ingenui- 
ty could  guess  whether  an  officer  inspired  or  un- 
inspired, ordinary  or  extraordinary,  highest  or 
lowest  in  the  church,  was  intended  ! ! !  Did  any 
thing  like  this  ever  happen  in  the  affairs  of  men, 
from  father  Adam,  down  to  this  present  A.  D. 
1807  ?  Is  such  a  fact  consistent  with  the  nature 
and  use  of  human  language  ?  Is  it  consistent  with 
the  operations  or  the  being  of  any  society  what- 
ever ?  If  the  state  of  the  primitive  church  with 
respect  to  terms  of  office,  were  such  as  the  Epis- 
copal argument  represents  it,  she  would  indeed, 
have  been 

Mostrum  horrendum,  informe,  ingens,  cui  lumen  ademptum  ; 

a  perfectly  unnatural  and  monstrous  production  j 
dark  and  confused  as  "  Chaos  and  old  Night." 

This  demonstration  that  the  representation  on 
the  part  of  the  Hierarchy  cann.ot  be  true,  accords 
precisely  with  scriptural  facts.  From  these,  there- 
fore, we  shall  prove  that  it  is  not  true.  A  contro- 
versy of  moment  was  referred  by  the  church  at 
Antioch,  to  the  apostles  and  elders  of  Jerusalem. 
Now,  if  apostle  and  elder  are  not  specific  terms  of 
office,  where  is  the  propriety  of  the  distinction  } 
And  to  whom  was  the  reference  made  ^  Would 
the  description  have  answered  as  well  if  the  as- 
sembly had  been  composed  entirely  of  apostles; 
entirely  of  elders ;  or  entirely  of  deacons  }  Paul  and 


46  Review 

Barnabas  ordained  elders  (presbyters)  in  every 
city.  Cannot  an  Episcopalian  tell,  even  from  the 
na?7ie,  whether  they  ordained  bishops,  priests,  or 
"deacons  ?  Titus  was  commissioned  by  Paul  to 
ordain  elders  in  every  city :  and  Timothy  received 
his  instructions  pointing  out  the  qualifications  of 
men  who  were  to  be  made  bishops  and  deacons. 
Pray,  if  the  ojicer  was  not  precisely  designated  by 
the  7iame,  what  sense  was  there  in  giving  particu- 
lar instructions  relative  to  each  ?  How  were 
Titus  and  Timothy  to  find  out  what  sort  of  offi- 
cers the  apostle  meant  ?  Would  any  Episcopalian 
affirm,  that  under  cover  of  the  indefinite  terms 
elder,  bishop,  and  deacon,  the  good  evangelists  might 
have  settled  down  a  dozen  diocesans  in  every  city  ? 
or  created  a  score  of  new  apostles  ?  Why  not  ? 
if  apostle,  bishop,  presbyter,  deacon,  are  only  general 
terms  of  office,  but  are  not  appropriated  to  any 
particular  orders  of  officers.  Nay,  if  the  Episco- 
pal assertion  on  this  subject  is  correct,  a  broad 
line  of  absurdity  runs  through  the  apostolic  wri- 
tings, and  through  the  whole  transactions  of  the 
apostolic  church. 

The  simple  truth  is,  that  all  these  terms,  apostle, 
bishop,  and  jjresbyter,  and  deacon,  were  as  distinc- 
tive, and  were  annexed  to  certain  officers  with 
as  much  regularity  and  exactness,  as  any  official 
terms  can  be  at  this  hour.  The  first  was  given 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  ofl^icers  commission- 
ed immediately  by  himself,  for  the  purpose  of  car- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  47 

rying  his  name  and  establishing  his  church  among 
the  nations.  The  last,  viz.  deacon,  was  given  to 
officers  ordained  by  the  apostles  to  look  after  the 
poor.  The  other,  viz.  elder,  or  presbyter,  had  long 
been  in  use  as  a  specific  term  of  office.  It  signi- 
fied a  ruler ;  but  a  ruler  whose  power  was  well 
defined,  and  was  perfectly  familiar  to  the  Jews. 
Presbyters  were  to  be  found  in  every  synagogue ; 
and  every  man  in  the  nation  was  acquainted  with 
their  functions.  If  ever  there  was  a  term  which 
conveyed  precise  ideas  of  a  particular  office,  and 
was  too  notorious  to  be  mistaken,  presbyter  was 
that  term.  By  transferring  it  to  rulers  in  the 
Christian  church,  the  greatest  caution  was  taken 
both  to  prevent  misconception  of  their  authority, 
and  to  facilitate  the  organization  of  Christian  so- 
cieties. As  there  were  Jews  every  where,  and 
converts  every  where  gathered  from  among  them, 
there  were  every  where  a  number  prepared  to 
fall,  without  difficulty,  into  a  regular  church  con- 
nexion, and  to  train  the  Gentile  believers,  to  whom 
the  whole  system  was  perfectly  new.  But  they 
would  have  talked  of  elders  to  the  day  of  their 
death,  without  the  most  distant  notion  of  such  a 
ruler  as  a  diocesan  bishop.  These  ChristicLn pi-esby- 
ters  were  also  bishops  (sflricxo^oi.)  The  former  word 
denoting  their  authority ;  the  latter,  the  functions 
growing  out  of  it.  They  were,  according  to  the 
form  in  which  the  master  had  distributed  their 
duties,  to  execute  the  office  of  presbyters,  by  taking 


48  Review. 

the  episcopate  or  oversight  of  the  flock.  So  charges 
Paul  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus :  Feed  the  flock  of 
God^  over  ivhichthe  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops 
i.  e.  overseers.)  or  inspectors.  So  charges  Peter  the 
presbyters  of  the  dispersion :  Feed  the  flock  of  God — 
taking  the  oversight  thereof:  the  word  is  s^iCxoirouvTs?, 
which  signifies,  "  exercising  the  Episcopal  office^'' 

If,  then,  the  term  presbyter  or  elder^  had  been  so 
long  settled ;  if  it  denoted  an  officer  as  unlike  a 
modern  bishop  as  can  well  be  conceived  :  and  if 
it  was  admitted  universally  into  the  Christian 
church,  as  thus  understood,  (for  there  is  no  inti- 
mation of  its  sense  having  been  changed,)  then 
the  allegation  of  the  Hierarchy,  that  it  is  an  inde- 
finite term,  signifying  merely  a  ruler,  without  re- 
ference to  his  station,  is  altogether  false,  and  the 
objection  founded  upon  this  allegation  is  altoge- 
ther frivolous.  On  the  other  hand,  the  argument 
founded  upon  it  for  the  identity  of  the  scriptural 
bishops  and  presbyters  as  rulers  in  the  church,  to 
the  exclusion  of  prelates,  issohd  and  strong;  the 
flings  of  "  good  for  nothing,"  and  "  miserable  so- 
phistry," to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

We  have  derived  some  amusement  from  re- 
marking, that  while  our  Episcopal  friends  perti- 
naciously deny  that  any  official  name  in  the  New 
Testament  is  so  appropriated  to  a  particular  of- 
fice as  to  designate  the  kind  of  officer,  they  can- 
not render  their  own  reasoning  intelligible  with- 
out the  aid  of  the  very  principle  which  they  reject. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  49 

"  The  apostles,"  saijs  the  Layman,  "  are  called  presbyters. 
This  proves  conclusively  that  no  argument  can  be  drawn,  by 
the  advocate  of  parity,  from  the  promiscuous  use  of  the  terms 
presbyter,  bishop,  in  the  sacred  writings.  If  it  proves  that 
there  is  now  but  one  order  in  the  ministry,  it  proves  equally 
that  Paul  was  upon  a  perfect  level  with  the  elders  of  Ephe- 
sus."*     Again, 

"  Christ  is  called  diaconos,  which  is  translated  deacon,  or 
minister.  Therefore  Christ  was  on  a  level  with  the  deacons 
of  Jerusalem." 

Does  not  every  reader  perceive,  at  the  first 
glance,  that  the  whole  force  of  this  objection, 
which  is  to  put  down  the  advocates  of  ministeri- 
al parity,  depends  upon  the  supposition,  that  pres- 
byter and  deacon  are  titles  appropriated  to  par- 
ticular grades  of  office  }  For  if  they  are  not,  if 
they  denote  only  office  in  general;  what  will  the 
objection  say  .^  To  try  it  fairly — substitute  officers, 
in  the  room  of  elders;  and  the  proposition  will 
stand  thus  :  the  apostles  are  called  elders  ;  there- 
fore, the  apostles  are  on  a  level  with  officers  in  the 
church.  This  is  not  likely  to'  fill  the  "  advocates 
of  parity,"  with  any  great  alarm.     Again, 

"  The  apostle  addresses  Timothy  and  him  alone,  as  the 
supreme  governor  of  the  church,  [of  Ephesus]  calling  upon 
him  to  see  that  his  presbyters  preach  no  strange  doctrine."! 

Here  the  Layman  uses  presbyter  as  a  precise 
term,  for  a  particular  grade  of  officers  ;  and  so 
does  the  apostle  in  the  epistle  referred  to,  or  else 
the  Layman's  argument,  to  quote  his  own  words, 
"  is  literally  good  for  nothing."  Nay,  he  even  con- 

*  No.  1.  Collec.  p.  8.     f  Layman,  No.  v.  Colkc.  p.  55. 
Vol.  III.  7 


50  R 


evtew. 


cedes  that  the  term  presbiiteros,  elder,  is  "  ordina- 
rily appropriated  in  the  New  Testament,  to  the 
second  grade  of  ministers  ;"  although,  "  it  is  ca- 
pable of  being  applied  to  all  the  grades."*  But 
how  we  are  to  discover  when  it  is  applied  in  one 
way,  and  when  in  the  other ;  i.  e.  when  it  has  a 
particular,  and  when  a  general  signification,  nei- 
ther this  gentleman  nor  his  reverend  associates 
have  been  pleased  to  tell  us.  If  we  are  to  judge 
from  facts,  which  they  recommend  as  an  excellent 
way  of  judging,  and  if  we  collect  facts  from  their 
own  conduct  in  the  debate,  the  rule  is  this.  Pres- 
byter is  always  a  definite  term  of  office  when  it  makes 
FOR  the  prelates.^  and  always  an  indefinite  owe,  when 
it  makes  against  them.  For  example :  When 
Timothy  is  to  be  proved  a  bishop,  in  the  genuine 
prelatical  sense  of  the  word,  presbyter  infallibly 
signifies  the  second  grade  of  ministers.  This  is 
sober,  solid  logic,  which  no  man  who  can  put  a 
syllogism  together  must  venture  to  dispute.  On 
the  other  side,  when  Paul,  addressing  these  same 
presbyters,  seems  to  identify  them  with  bishops ; 
then  presbyter  is  nothing  more  than  a  general 
term  of  office  :  and  the  argument  drawn  from  its 
being  convertible  with  episcopos,  or  bishop,  is 
"  literally  good  for  nothing,"  "  the  old  and  mise- 
rable sophistry  of  names !" 

All  this,  to  be  sure,  is  vastly  ingenious,  and  in- 
finitely removed  from  sophistry  and  quibble !  But 

«  No.  1.  Collec.  p.  7. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  51 

as  imagination  is  apt  now  and  then  to  be  unruly, 
we  fancied  that  it  is  not  unlike  the  Socinian  me- 
thod of  defending  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures. 
Let  those  great  himinaries  of  wisdom,  Dr.  Priestley 
and  his  compeers,  patch  up  the  "  lame  accounts" 
of  Moses ;  refute  the  "  inconclusive"  reasonings 
of  Paul;  and  otherwise  alter  and  amend  the  Bible, 
as  their  philosophy  shall  dictate ;  and,  then,  the 
sacred  writings  will  be  inspired  to  some  purpose ! 
Let  the  abettors  of  prelacy  interpret  terms  now 
one  way,  and  then  the  contrary  way,  as  it  shall  suit 
their  convenience,  and  they  will,  no  doubt,  convert 
the  New  Testament  into  a  forge  for  the  Hierar- 
chy, and  swear  in  an  apostle  to  superintend  the 
manufacture. 

But  still,  how  are  we  to  repel  the  consequence 
with  which  they  press  us  ?  If  presbyter  and  dea- 
con are  definite  terms  of  office,  and  the  apostles 
are  called  presbyters,  and  their  Lord  a  deacon, 
(^^laxovos)  we  certainly,  by  our  argument,  confound 
all  distinctions  :  and  put  the  apostles,  and  their 
master  too,  on  a  level  with  the  ordinary  and  even 
lowest  officers  in  the  church. 

No  such  thing.  The  conclusion  is  vain,  because 
the  premises  are  false.  The  objection  overlooks 
a  distinction  which  its  authors  themselves  are 
compelled  to  observe  every  hour  of  their  fives ; 
and  that  is,  the  distinction  between  the  absolute 
and  relative  use  of  terms.  By  the  absolute  use  of 
terms,  we  mean  their  being  applied  to  certain 


52  Review. 

subjects  in  such  a  manner  as  to  sink  their  gene- 
ral sense  in  a  particular  one.  By  their  relative  use, 
we  mean  their  being  coupled  with  other  terms 
which  permit  them  to  be  understood  in  their  ge- 
neral sense  only.  To  the  former  class  belong  all 
names  which,  however  general  in  their  primary 
ideas,  have  become  appropriated  to  particular  ob- 
jects. To  the  latter  belong  the  innumerable  ap- 
phcations  which  may  be  made  of  the  very  same 
terms,  when  not  thus  appropriated.  Examples 
will  best  illustrate  the  distinction.  Congress,judg€, 
assembly.,  are  terms  of  great  latitude,  and  their  ap- 
plications may  be  varied  without  end.  When  we 
say  a  congress  of  bodies,  of  waters,  of  people — a 
judge  of  music,  of  sculpture,  of  painting — an  as- 
sembly of  citizens,  of  clergy,  of  delegates ;  all  the 
world  perceives  that  these  terms  are  used  in  their 
general  sense,  and  can  be  used  in  no  other.  But 
when  we  speak  of  the  United  States,  and  say,  the 
congress.,  the  judges ;  or  of  the  state  of  New-York, 
and  say,  the  judges.,  the  assembly.,  all  the  world  per- 
ceives that  the  terms  are  used  in  a  particular 
sense,  and  designate  precisely  certain  public  of- 
ficers to  whom,  and  to  whom  alone,  every  man, 
woman,  and  child,  in  the  country  will  refer  them. 
Now  supposing  that  certain  individuals  should  re- 
mit a  litigated  point  to  one  of  the  judges.,  and  we 
should  insist  that  this  may  mean  the  Lieut.  Gover- 
nour,  because  the  term  judge  may  be  applied  to 
him,  when  he  sits  in  the  court  of  errours :  and 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  53 

suppose  an  opponent  to  urge  that  "  judge"  is  an 
official  term  appropriated  to  known  officers  ;  and 
us  to  reply,  your  argument  is  «  literally  good  for 
nothino-,"  "  the  miserable  sophistry  of  names ; 
judcre  Ts  a  generic  term;  and  by  this  same  mode 
of  reasoning  you  might  prove  that  every  justice  of 
the  peace  is  on  a  level  with  the  chief  justice  of 
the  United  States,  or  with  God  himself,  because 
"judge"  is  a  name  given  to  them  all !  !     Would 
not  this  pass  for  most  sage  ratiocination,  and 
persuade  the  public,  that  whoever  should  not  bow 
to  it,  must  be  either  a  "  miserable"  sophist,  or  an 
incorrigible  dunce?  And  wherein  it  would  yield 
the  praise  of  acuteness,  closeness,  or  strength,  to 
the  Episcopal  objection  to  the  argument  drawn  by 
the  advocates  of  parity  from  the  use  of  #««/ terms 
in  the  New  Testament,  we  are  unable  to  discern. 
The  mistake  in  both  cases  is  the  same,  viz.  the 
confounding  the  absolute  and  relative,  or  as  we 
have  explained  it,  the  official  and  unofficial  use  of 
the  same  term.     Make  this  plain  distinction,  and 
the  reply  of  the  Hierarchy  is  ruined.     The  Lord 
Jesus  is  emphatically  the  sext  of  God;  and  there- 
fore he  is  called,  the  apostle  of  our  profession.* 
He  is  also  called  the  minister  (diaconos)  ofruE  cir- 
cumcision :t  but  never,  absolutely,  "  an  apostle," 
"  a  deacon."     Paul  and  his  fellow  apostles  are 
often  called  Jmconoz,  ministers ;  in  such  form  as 
this,  ministers  of  god,  ministers  of  the  new  testa- 

*Heb.  iii.  1.  fRom.  XV.  8. 


54  Review. 

MENT  :*  but  never,  absolutely,  "  deacons."  They 
are  also  called  elders^  or  presbyters ;  and  for  this 
very  good  reason,  that  possessing  ordinary  as  well 
as  extraordinary  powers,  .they  frequently  partici- 
pated in  the  councils,  and  exercised  only  the  au- 
thority, of  presbyters.t 

Reverse  the  order  :  begin  with  the  lowest  and 
go  up  to  the  highest  officer  in  the  church,  and  you 
will  not  find  an  instance  in  which  the  official  name 
of  the  superiour  is  apphed  to  the  inferiour.  Dea- 
cons are  no  where  called  presbyters,  nor  presby- 
ters, apostles.  Cyprian  does,  indeed,  assert,  that 
"  the  apostolic  authority  was  manifestly  commu- 
nicated to  Epaphroditus."     Where  is  the  proof  .^ 

"  St.  Paul,"  says  he,  "  in  his  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  ii. 
25,  calls  him  the  apostle  to  the  Philippians."  "  But  I  sup- 
posed it  necessary  to  send  to  you  Epaphroditus,  my  brother 
and  companion  in  labour  and  fellow-soldier,  but  your  apos- 
tle," (in  our  version,  your  messenger.)  Accordingly  St.  Je- 
rome observes,  "  by  degrees,  in  process  of  time,  others  were 
ordained  apostles  by  those  whom  our  Lord  had  chosen" — as 
that  passage  to  the  Philippians  shows.  "  I  supposed  it  ne- 
cessary to  send  unto  you  "  Epaphroditus,  your  apostle."  And 
Theodoret,  upon  this  place,  gives  this  reason  why  Epaphro- 
ditus is  called  the  apostle  to  the  Philippians.  "  He  was  in- 
trusted with  the  Episcopal  government,  "  as  being  their 
bishop."  But  these  are  parts  of  scripture  on  which  the  advo- 
cates of  Episcopacy  place  the  least  reliance."! 

In  this  paragraph,  as  in  many  others,  the  asser- 

2  Cor.  vi.  4. 
f  This  matter  shall  be  more  fully  explained  hereafter. 
X  Cyprian,  No.  iii.  CoUec.  p.  72. 


Kssays  on  Episcopacy.  55 

tions  of  Cyprian,  applauded  and  adopted  by  Mr. 
H.  display  more  haste  than  inquiry,  and  more  ar- 
dour than  discretion.  To  force  a  testimony  in 
favour  of  Episcopacy,  he  has  contrived,  by  a  false 
translation  of  two  words,  to  put  into  the  mouth  of 
the  apostle  Paul  a  speech  which  he  never  uttered. 
"  St.  Paul,"  says  he,  "  calls  Epaphroditus,  the  apos- 
tle to  the  Philippians."  Paul  does  no  such  thing; 
he  would  not  have  spoken  truth,  if  he  had.  No 
person,  as  shall  be  proved  in  its  place,  could  be 
vested  with  apostolic  authority,  but  by  the  imme- 
diate appointment  of  Christ  himself  Such  an  ap- 
pointment Epaphroditus  had  not ;  and,  therefore, 
Paul  did  not,  could  not,  call  him  "  an  apostle," 
in  the  official  sense  of  that  term ;  much  less  "  the 
apostle  to  the  Phihppians ;"  because  a  permanent 
connexion  with  any  particular  church,  hke  that 
which  subsists  between  a  presbyter  and  his  con- 
gregation, or  between  a  prelate  and  his  diocese, 
was  essentially  incompatible  with  the  apostolic 
character.  We  wonder  that  Cyprian^  while  his 
hand  was  in,  did  not  fix  down  Paul  himself  as  the 
diocesan  of  Corinth  and  its  dependencies.  For 
his  own  words  to  the  Christians  of  that  city  are, 
If  I  be  not  an  apostle  unto  others,  yet  doubtless  I  am 
TO  YOU  :  for  the  seal  of  mine  apostleship  are  ye  in  the 
Lord.*  Here  occurs,  in  a  fair  and  honest  trans- 
lation, the  very  phrase  of  "  an  apostle  to  a  peo- 
ple," which  Cyprian  fabricated  by  a  gross  mis- 

•  1  Cor.  ix.  2. 


36  Review. 

rendering  of  a  passage  in  the  epistle  to  the  Phihp- 
pians.  And  considering  the  anxiety  with  which 
the  New  Testament  has  been  searched  for  prelates, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  stubborn,  most  stub- 
born facts  did  not  stand  in  the  way,  Paul  would 
have  been  made  up  into  a  diocesan  long  ago: 
and  introduced  to  our  acquaintance,  with  the 
mitre  on  his  brow,  as  the  bishop  of  Corinth.  But 
if  the  declaration,  "  1  am  an  apostle  unto  you,"  is 
no  proof  whatever,  that  Paul  filled  an  Episcopal 
see  among  the  Corinthians ;  how  can  the  expres- 
sion, "  an  apostle  to  you,"  even  admitting  it  to  be 
correct,  prove  that  Epaphroditus  was  bishop  of 
Philippi  ?  But  the  words,  mangled  by  Cyprian  into 
an  "  apostle  to  you,"*  signify  just  what  our  com- 
mon version  represents  them  to  signify,  "  your 
messenger."  The  Phihppians  had  sent  him  with 
a  contribution  to  the  relief  of  the  apostle's  wants ; 
as  he  himself  tells  us  in  the  fourth  chapter.  Ihave 
all  and  abound :  I  am  full;  having  received  of  Epa- 
phroditus the  things  tvhich  were  sent  from  you — v.  18. 
This  is  the  reason  why  he  is  called  their  messen- 
ger. The  coupling  of  the  term  apostolos  with 
"  your,"  takes  it  out  of  the  predicament  of  official 
names,  and  requires  that  it  be  understood  in  its 
general  sense,  which  is,  "  a  messenger."  It  has 
nothing  to  do  with  Episcopal  relations,  or  clerical 
functions  of  any  sort;  say  Theodoret  what  he 
pleases.     It  was  hardly  just  to  found  the  title  of  a 

*  u/xwv  aifogoXos . 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  57 

bishop  in  the  murder  of  a  text.  But  whatever 
sentence  be  pronounced  on  Tiieodoret,  we  entire- 
ly acquit  Cyprian  from  the  charge  of  sinning 
against  knowledge. 

Cyprian  seems  also  to  labour  under  the  incon- 
venience of  a  bad  memory.  For  after  agree- 
ing with  his  friend  the  Layman  to  reprobate  all 
reasoning  from  words  to  things  ;  he  lays  the  whole 
stress  of  an  argument  for  the  prelatical  dignity  of 
Epaphroditus  upon  a  single  word.  And  so  mighty 
is  the  force  of  this  word  in  his  eyes,  that  on  the 
strength  thereof,  he  says  that  the  "  Apostolic  au- 
thority was  manifestly  communicated  to  Epaphro- 
ditus." When  the  fact  turns  out  to  be,  that  even 
the  word  which  is  to  manifest  this  "  communica- 
tion," has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject !  And 
then,  to  finish  neatly,  he  informs  us  in  the  close 
of  the  paragraph,  that  "  these  are  parts  of  scrip- 
ture on  which  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  place 
the  least  reliance.''''  They  are  wise  to  let  the  this- 
tle alone  after  feeling  its  prickles — But  it  is  rather 
incongruous  to  place  only  "  the  least  reliance^''  up- 
on "  parts  of  scripture"  which  "  manifestly''''  prove 
the  very  point  they  would  be  at.  And  no  less  so, 
to  build  their  "  manifest"  proof  upon  an  argument 
which  they  themselves  have  pronounced  to  be 
"  miserable  sophistry,"  and  "  literally  good  for 
nothing  !"* 

*  These  geutleiueu  are  hardly  civil  to  their  favourite  Theodo- 
ret,  from  whom,  througli  Whitby  and  Potter,  they  borrowed  this 
Vol.  III.  8 


V 


58  Reviciv 

Verum  operi  lo?igo  fas  est  ohrepere  somnum : 

the  right  to  be  drowsy,  in  protracted  toil,  has  be- 
come prescriptive.  Homer  occasionally  nodded ; 
and  we  shall  not  refuse  to  Cyprian  and  his  col- 
leagues the  indulgence  of  a  nap. 

The  sum  is,  that  the  terms  ajwstle^  bishop,  pres- 
byter, deacon,  designate,  with  precision,  officers 
known  and  established  in  the  apostolic  church — 
That  no  two  of  these  terms  are  used  interchange- 
ably, excepting  "  presbyter"  and  "  bishop."  We 
mean  that  apostle  and  bishop ;  apostle  and  pres- 
byter ;  apostle  and  deacon ;  bishop  and  deacon ; 
presbyter  and  deacon,  are  never  put  promiscuous- 
ly the  one  for  the  other  ;  And  the  reason  is,  that 
they  do  not  signify  the  same  thing.  But  that  "  bish- 
op" and  "  presbyter"  are  used  interchangeably ; 
so  that  you  may  put  the  one  for  the  other  at 
pleasure,  without  destroying  or  obscuring  the 
sense  of  the  sacred  writers  :  and  the  reason  is,  and 
must  be,  that  they  do  signify  the  same  thing;  that 
is,  they  mark  one  and  the  same  grade  of  ecclesi- 
astical rulers.  This  last  proposition,  Theodoret, 
fierce  as  he  was  for  prelacy,  has  himself  advanced. 
He  probably  did  not  observe  how  fatal  it  is  to  the 
hierarchy,  as  the  discussions  on  that  subject  were 
not,  in  his  day,  very  deep  nor  general.  But  so 
sensible  was  Dr.  Hammond,  the  most  learned, 

"manifest"  communicatiou  of  the  apostolic  authority — to  hold 
him  up  with  one  hand  as  a  venerable  defender  of  their  cause ;  and 
with  the  other  to  lash  him  as  a  miserable  sophist. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  59 

perhaps,  of  all  the  episcopal  champions,  that  the 
argument  drawn  by  presbyterians  from  the  iden- 
tity of  the  scriptural  bishop  and  presbyter,  is  con- 
clusive against  prelacy,  that  he  boldly  denied  the 
existence  of  such  officers  as  are  now  called  pres- 
byters, till  about  or  after  the  death  of  the  apos- 
tles.*    In  supporting  this  paradoxical  opinion,  he 

*  "  Although  this  title  of  n^srf/SuTs'^oijJSWer*,  have  been  extend- 
ed to  a  second  order  in  the  church,  and  is  now  only  in  use  for  them, 
under  the  names  of  Presbyters,  yet  in  the  scripture-times  it  belong- 
ed principally,  if  not  alone,  to  bishops,  there  being  no  evidence 
that  any  of  that  second  order  were  then  instituted,  though  soon 
after,  before  the  writing  of  Ignatius'  epistles,  there  were  such  in- 
stituted in  all  the  churches." — Hammond,  on  Act  xi.  30.  p.  380. 

How  irrecoucileably  all  this  is  at  war  with  the  assertions  and 
reasonings  of  other  learned  advocates  of  the  hierarchy,  from  whom 
the  unlearned  ones  necessarily  copy,  we  may  amuse  ourselves  with 
showing  in  a  more  convenient  place.  One  or  two  remarks  we 
cannot  suppress.  Dr.  Hammond  does  not  tell  us  how  these  pres- 
byters came  into  the  church,  but  is  pretty  sure  that  they  were  in- 
troduced after  "  the  scripture  times,"  that  is,  after  the  canon  of  the 
scripture  was  completed,  and  "  before  the  writing  of  Ignatius''  epis- 
tles." TheDr.  then  confesses  that  the  order  of  presbyters  asinferiour 
to  the  bishop,  is  not  of  divine  right ;  there  being  no  evidence  that 
any  of  that  second  order  were  instituted  in  scripture  times  :  con- 
sequently, that  as  Christ  had  regulated  his  church,  bishops  or  pres- 
byters, and  deacons,  had  no  intermediate  officer  between  them. 
This  is  exactly  what  the  presbyterians  maintain,  and  they  are 
much  his  debtor.  But  as  he  saw  that  their  argument  would  ruin 
him,  as  he  was  utterly  unable  to  controvert  its  principle,  viz.  the 
identity  of  the  bishop  and  presbyter ;  and  as  he  was  determined 
not  to  give  up  the  hierarchy,  he  had  recourse  to  the  extravagant 
fiction  of  transforming  all  the  presbyters  into  Diocesans.  But  as 
Diocesans  with  only  deacons,  would  constitute  rather  a  bald 
hierarchy,  it  was  requisite,  to  give  eclat  to  their  dignity,  to  foist  in 


60  Review. 

metamorphoses  every  presbyter  of  the  apostoHc 
church  into  a  diocesan  bishop !  The  meaning  of 
language  shall  be  inverted :  the  testimony  of  the 
scripture  shall  be  dislocated :  the  presbyters  of 
the  city  of  Ephesus  shall  be  an  assemblage  of  dio- 
cesan bishops  collected  from  all  Asia!  Truth, 
probability,  and  common  sense,  shall  be  set  at 
naught — but  the  object  is  worth  the  price;  the 
sacrifice  is  amply  compensated,  provided  presby- 
ters be  banished  from  the  New  Testament,  and 
no  ruler  be  seen  there  unless  in  the  shape  of  a 
diocesan  bishop  !  Had  only  the  Layman  and  Cy- 
prian^ and  their  friends,  been  troubled,  there  had 
been  less  cause  of  surprise.  But  that  an  argument 
"  good  for  nothing ;"  a  bit  of  "  miserable  sophis- 
try," should  put  Dr.  Hammond^  the  o  "^a^,  the  very 
Gohath  of  "  the  church,"  into  such  a  fright  as 
nearly  to  turn  his  brain,  is  strange  indeed  ! 

But  should  the  episcopalian  be  worsted  in  the 
contest  about  the  scriptural  titles^  what  will  be  to 

another  order  for  which  three  is  no  scriptural  warrant.  And  thus 
at  one  stroke  he  has  levelled  with  the  ground  the  whole  fabric  which 
the  other  episcopal  workmen  have  been  rearing.  For  if  Timothy 
and  Tilus  were  not  Diocesan  bishops,  as  the  latter  affirm  and  the 
Dr.  denies ;  and  if  they  were  not  metropolitans,  as  the  Dr.  affirms, 
the  others  deny,  and  no  man  living  can  prove  ;  then  one  of  their 
famous  three  orders  has  vanished  away.  Of  the  Dr's  supposition 
that  the  presbyters  were  instituted  before  the  writings  of  Ignatius' 
epistles,  the  reason  is,  that  they  must  be  found  prior  to  that  date,  or 
else  poor  Ignatius  must  be  hung  up  for  forgery. — A  notable  man- 
cpuvre  this  to  save  the  credit  of  the  principal  witness  for  the  Hie- 
rarchy. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  61 

us  the  advantage  of  victory,  or  to  him  the  injury 
of  defeat,  if  he  shall,  nevertheless,  establish  his 
claim  by  scriptural /ac^5  ?    So  very  little,  that  the 
choice  between  victory  and  defeat,  on  the  first 
ground,  would  not  be  worth  a  straw  to  either. 
Abstractly  considered,  there  is  no  inconsistency 
between  our  own  doctrine  of  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  and  the  episcopal  doctrine  of  a 
superiour  grade;    For  certainly  it  does  not  follow, 
from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  that  because  bishop 
and  presbyter  mean  the  same  officer,  therefore 
there  is  no  other  officer  above  him.     But  as  the 
facts  stand,  the  case  is  widely  different ;  and  the 
value  of  the  argument  from  the  scriptural  titles 
lies  here,  that  this  superiour  order  must  be  found 
among  the  bishops  and  presbyters,  or  not  at  all ; 
because,  with  the  exception  of  deacons,  these  were 
the  only  ordinary  officers  in  the  apostoHc  church. 
If,  then,  "  bishop"  is  the  same  with  "  presbyter," 
the  superiour  or  prelatical  order  is  absolutely  un- 
known to  the  official  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    Presbyters  and  deacons  we  meet  with  in 
abundance,  but  not  the  shadow  of  a  prelate  ever 
crosses  our  path.     Now,  that  official  titles  should 
be  conferred  upon  every  grade  of  officers  in  the 
church  except  the  highest ;  that  this  officer  should 
have  no  place  in  the  official  catalogue ;  that  he 
should  wander  up  and  down  among  the  churches 
without  so  much  as  a  name  ;  that  while  his  subal- 
terns are  mentioned  particularly  and  repeatedly. 


62  Review. 

his  own  existence  and  dignity  should  be  a  matter 
of  mere  inference  from  his  acts^  so  far  surpasses 
ail  the  powers  of  belief,  that  the  proof  of  his  exist- 
ence is  almost,  if  not  altogether,  impossible.  This 
leads  to  a  very  short  refutation  of  a  plea  on  which 
no  small  "  reliance"  has  been  placed  by  episco- 
pal writers,  from  Theodoret  down  to  the  Layman  ; 
viz.  that  names  of  office,  like  other  words,  change 
their  signification ;  and  become,  in  process  of  time, 
signs  of  ideas  quite  different  from  those  which 
they  originally  expressed. 

"  In  Roman  history,"  says  the  Layman,  "  we  find  the  term 
Imperator  at  one  period  appUed  to  designate  a  general  of  an 
army  ;  at  another,  a  magistrate  clothed  with  unlimited  civil 
and  military  authority.  Suppose  we  should  be  told  that  every 
general  of  an  army  was  Emperor  of  Rome  ;  and  that  the 
Emperor  of  Rome  was  merely  general  of  an  army ;  what 
would  be  the  reply  ?  That  the  term  Imperator  had  changed 
its  signification.  And  how  would  this  be  proved  1  By  the 
Roman  history,  which  shows  us  that  the  Emperors  had  gene- 
rals under  them,  over  whom  they  exercised  authority.  Apply 
this  reasoning  to  the  case  under  consideration.  The  tei'ms 
bishop,  presbyter,  are  used  promiscuously  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Therefore,  say  the  advocates  of  parity,  they  designa- 
ted the  same  office  in  the  ages  subsequent  to  the  apostles.  Is 
this  a  logical  conclusion  ?  Surely  not.  Names  change  their 
signification.  Ecclesiastical  history  tells  us,  and  the  most 
learned  advocates  of  parity  have  admitted  the  fact,  that  the 
order  of  bishops  existed  in  the  church  as  distinct  from,  and 
superiour  to,  the  order  of  presbyters,  within  forty  or  fifty  years 
after  the  last  of  the  apostles.  The  bishops  then  had  presbyters 
under  them,  over  whom  they  exercised  authority.  The  offices 
were  distinct  from  the  beginning,  bishops  being  the  successors, 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  63 

not  of  those  who  are  promiscuously  called  bishops,  presbyters, 
elders,  in  the  New  Testament,  but  of  the  apostles  themselves. 
Theodoret  tells  us  expressly,  "  that  in  the  process  of  time  those 
who  succeeded  to  the  apostoUc  office,  left  the  name  of  apostle 
to  the  apostles,  strictly  so  called,  and  gave  the  name  of  bishop 
to  those  who  succeeded  to  the  apostolic  office."  No  argument, 
then,  can  be  founded  on  the  promiscuous  use  of  names."* 

We  hardly  expected  to  find  the  Layman  ad- 
vancing and  retracting  a  doctrine  in  the  compass 
of  a  single  page.  Yet,  assuredly,  if  bishops  are 
not  the  successors  of  those  who  are  promiscuous- 
ly called  bishops  and  presbyters,  then  these  names 
do  designate  a  precise  order  of  officers,  which  was 
the  very  thing  the  Layman  had  denied  in  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph.  That  names  change  their  sig- 
nification is  no  new  discovery.  But  can  this  either 
help  the  hierarchy,  or  hurt  the  advocates  of  pari- 
ty "?  Things  are  before  names  -,  and  the  changes 
in  things  before  changes  in  names.  If,  therefore,  a 
change  has  passed  upon  the  signification  of  official 
names  in  the  church,  since  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, that  alone  proves  to  a  demonstration,  that  a 
change  has  also  passed  upon  the  offices  them- 
selves; which  consequently  are  not  as  the  apostles 
left  them.  This  is  exactly  what  the  presbyterians 
maintain  ;  and  so  the  episcopal  plea  returns  with 
all  its  force  upon  its  authors,  and  fastens  upon  their 
hierarchy  the  charge  of  having  departed  from, 
and  corrupted,  the  order  which  Christ  appointed 
for  his  church,  and  which  the  death  of  his  apostles 

*   Layman,  No.  1.  Collec.  p.  8.  9. 


64  Review. 

sealed  up  for  permanency.  We  are  not  ignorant 
that  the  prelatical  writers  attribute  this  change  of 
names  to  a  very  different  cause.  The  celebrated 
Dr.  Bentley,  who,  in  critical  learning,  in  spirit, 
and  fire,  surpasses  the  most  of  them,  and  falls  short 
of  none,  thinks  it  was  the  modesty  of  the  prelates* 
which  induced  them  to  relinquish  the  name  of 
apostle,  and  to  assume  that  of  bishop.  It  is  hard 
to  estimate  the  degree  of  modesty  which  pervaded 
an  immensely  numerous  body  of  prelatest  at  a 
period  of  which  we  have  scarcely  any  records. 
The  epistles  of  their  tutelar  saint,  Ignatius^  do  not 
abound  with  that  lovely  virtue ;  and  all  the  world 
is  witness,  that  in  matters  relating  to  their  titles 
and  power,  the  order  has  been  entirely  innocent 
of  such  an  imputation  for  fourteen  centuries  at 
least.  The  apostles  themselves  decorated  the 
prelates,  we  arc  told,  with  their  own  name  and  or- 
dinary dignity ;  they  exercised  the  authority  and 
wore  the  name,  during  the  life,  and  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  apostles ;  and  after  their  death  retain- 
ed the  dignity^  but  renounced  the  appellation  out  of 
pure  modesty !  Dr.  Hammond  has  more  regard  to 
consistency.  He  first  creates,  after  the  death  of 
the  apostles,  an  inferiour  order  of  clergy ;  and  as 
they  could  not  well  do  without  a  name,  he  very 
ingeniously  splits  up  the  designation  of  the  pre-ex- 

*  Phileleutherus  Lipsiensis,  p.  186. 

f  Dr.  Hammond  says  there  were  t wenty- four,  hesidGS  the  me- 
tropolitau,  iu  Judca  aloue.     Annot.  ou  Rev.  iv.  4. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  65 

isting  order,  giving  one  half  to  the  prelates,  and 
the  other  to  his  new  race  of  officers ! 

We  repeat,  that  change  of  names  pre-supposes 
change  of  thimrs.  This  is  the  natural  and  neces- 
sary  course  of  language.  The  contrary  would 
reverse  the  operations  of  the  human  mind.  When 
the  change  was  introduced,  is  perfectly  immateri- 
al to  the  argument.  When  the  last  of  the  apos- 
tles breathed  out  his  spirit,  the  authority  of  the 
living  God  "  bound  up  the  testimony,  and  sealed 
the  law  among  his  disciples."  No  additions  nor 
diminutions  now.  xVnd  whether  the  alteration  in 
the  government  of  the  church,  which  produced  a 
corresponding  alteration  in  the  names  of  her  of- 
ficers, took  place  "  forty  years,"  or  forty  score  of 
years,  or  forty  hours  after  the  decease  of  the 
apostles,  is  not,  with  regard  to  the  rule  of  con- 
science, worth. the  trouble  of  a  question.  The 
advocates  of  parity,  do  not,  as  the  Layman  af- 
firms, infer  from  the  promiscuous  use  of  the  terms 
bishop  and  presbyter  in  the  New  Testament, 
"  that  they  designated  the  same  office  in  the  ages 
subsequent  to  the  apostles."  It  is  of  no  impor- 
tance to  them,  what  these  terms  signified  in  after 
ages.  They  prove  that  these  terms  signify  in  the 
New  Testament,  one  and  the  same  order  of  ru- 
lers ;  and  therefore  insist,  that,  as  the  rule  of  faith 
and  the  sense  of  the  scripture  are  immutable,  the 
same  terms  must  mean,  at  this  hour,  the  very  same 

thing  which  they  meant  as  they  dropped  from  the 

Vol.  Ill,  9 


66  JF?( 


evtew. 


pen  of  an  apostle.  This  is  enough  for  them,  as 
they  entertain  no  fear  of  being  unable  to  demon- 
strate that  the  scriptural  presbyters  are  not  dio- 
cesan bishops ;  and  are  the  only  ordinary  rulers 
which  the  New  Testament,  the  statute  book  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  recognizes  as  of  his  institution. 
The  subsequent  change  of  sense  in  the  scriptural 
titles,  as  we  have  more  than  once  observed,  proves 
decisively  a  change  in  the  original  order  of  the 
church  :  for  upon  no  other  principle  can  the  other 
change  be  explained.  The  Layman  has  been  pe- 
culiarly unhappy,  in  forcing  it  upon  the  notice  of 
his  readers.  He  has  only  turned  "  king's  evi- 
dence," against  his  party ;  and,  in  attempting  to 
parry  a  Presbyterian  thrust,  has  unwittingly  smit- 
ten his  own  bishop  under  the  fifth  rib. 

The  advocates  for  the  Hierarchy  labour  hard  to 
show  that  any  argument  from  official  names  to  the 
offices  designated  in  the  New  Testament,  is  in- 
conclusive. They  even  pronounce  it  "  good  for 
nothing."  Their  hope  is  to  render  the  scripture, 
thus  far,  neutral;  that  if  it  bear  no  testimony /or 
them,  it  shall  bear  none  against  them.  Whether 
they  have  succeeded  in  this  attempt  or  not,  we 
leave  to  the  dispassionate  judgment  of  the  reader, 
who,  with  a  desire  of  perceiving  and  embracing 
the  truth,  has  deliberately  considered  what  we 
have  already  written. 

We  now  follow  them  to  their  argument  from  the 


Essays  on  Kpiscopacy.  67 

scriptural /«c^^,  upon  which  they  avowedly  rest  the 
weight  of  their  cause. 

1l\\q  first  of  these  facts  is  the  triple  order  of  the 
priesthood  among  the  Jews. 

"  We  find,"  says  the  Layman,  "  three  orders  of  officers  in 
the  Jewish  church  ;  and,  in  the  Christian,  there  have  always 
been  three  orders  answering  to  these.  What  Aaron,  his 
sons,  and  the  Levites  were  in  the  temple,  that  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons  are  in  the  Church.  Such  is  the  concurring  tes- 
timony of  the  primitive  fathers.  Take  that  of  St.  Jerome, 
whom  the  advocates  of  parity  are  fond  of  quoting,  and  to 
whom,  therefore,  it  is  presumed,  they  will  not  object.  "  That 
we  may  Tcnoiv  the  apostolical  economy  to  be  taken  from  the  pat- 
tern of  the  Old  Testament,  the  same  that  Aaron,  and  his  sons, 
and  the  Levites,  were  in  the  temple,  the  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  deacons,  are  in  the  church  of  Christ.''''  It  is  too  absurd 
to  attempt  to  turn  this  parallel  into  ridicule.  By  the  very 
same  mode  of  proceeding  you  may  destroy  the  whole  Chris- 
tian dispensation.  In  all  that  he  has  said  upon  this  point, 
the  miscellaneous  writer  has  contributed  much  more  to  the 
support  of  infidelity  than  of  any  other  cause. 

"  How  far,  then,  do  we  carry  this  argument  ? 

"  We  say,  simply,  that  the  law  being'  figurative  of  the  gos- 
pel, in  all  its  important  parts,  the  Jewish  priesthood  was,  of 
course,  typical  of  the  Christian.  For  this  we  have  the  ex- 
press declaration  of  the  apostle  Paul,  and  the  advocates  of 
parity  will  not  pretend  to  controvert  the  position.  Well,  then, 
the  priest  of  the  law  serving  as  "  the  example  and  shadow  of 
heavenly  things,"  the  circumstance  of  there  being  three  orders 
in  the  Jewish  ministry,  furnishes  a  strong  presumption  against 
the  doctrine  of  parity.  We  do  not  rely  upon  this  as  proof . 
We  merely  state  it  as  presumptive  evidence,  entitled  to  real 
attention.  It  gives  us,  we  contend,  possession  of  the  ground, 
and  throws  the  burden  of  proof  upon  our  opponents. 


68  Review. 

••  Now,  what  says  the  miscellaneous  writer  in  reply  to  all 
this  ?  He  talks  to  us  of  the  dress  of  the  Jewish  high  priests  ; 
asking,  very  sagaciously,  where  are  the  golden,  ephod,  the 
breast  plate,  the  embroidered  girdle,  in  which  Aaron  and  his 
successors  were  clad.  I  call  upon  him  here  to  lay  his  hand 
upon  his  heart,  and  say,  whether  this  is  just  reasoning.  He 
knows  it  is  not.  What,  the  Jewish  priesthood  not  figurative 
of  the  Christian,  because  of  a  variety  in  dress  !  Is  it  neces- 
sary, in  order  that  one  thing  be  typical  of  another,  that  there 
should  be  no  points  of  difference  between  themi  No  more 
than  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  be  able  to  rise  to  the  per- 
fection of  the  character  of  Christ,  because  we  are  called  upon 
to  propose  him  as  the  model  for  imitation,  and  to  become  holy 
as  he  is  holy. 

"  Is  the  miscellaneous  writer  aware  of  the  conclusion  to 
which  his  mode  of  reasoning  conducts'?  If  he  has  proved 
that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  not  typical  of  the  Christian, 
he  has  proved,  equally,  that  the  law  was  not  a  shadow  of  the 
gospel ;  thus  destroying,  effectually,  all  connexion  between 
the  Old  and  New  Testament.  Is  there  no  difference  between 
our  Saviour  and  the  Paschal  Lamb  by  which  he  was  prefigur- 
ed 1  Abraham,  Moses,  Joshua,  David,  were  all  types  of 
Christ ;  but  were  there  no  points  of  distinction  between  these 
men  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ?  Give  to  the  infidel  the 
weapons  of  this  writer,  and  how  easily  will  he  demolish,  with 
them,  the  whole  fabric  of  Christianity  !  If  the  points  of  dif- 
ference which  have  been  mentioned,  between  the  priesthood 
of  the  law,  and  of  the  gospel,  prove  that  the  one  was  not 
typical  of  the  other,  they  equally  prove  that  our  Saviour  was 
never  prefigured,  and  that  that  intimate  connexion,  between 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations,  which  has  been  so 
much  relied  upon  by  the  defenders  of  the  faith,  never  existed 
but  in  the  imagination  of  men.  But  I  feel  as  if  I  were  in- 
sulting the  understanding  of  the  reader,  in  dwelling  on  this 
point.     I  dismiss  it,  therefore,  especially  as  I  have  not  been 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  69 

able  to  bring  myself  to  believe  that  the  writer  had  any  thing 
more  in  view,  in  it,  than  a  flourish  of  rhetoric  to  attract  the 
vulgar  gaze. 

"  The  Mosaic  dispensation,  then,  was  figurative  of  the 
Christian.  The  priesthood  of  the  law  was  typical  of  the 
priesthood  of  the  gospel.  The  former  consisting  of  distinct 
and  subordinate  orders,  a  strong  presumption  thence  arises  in 
favour  of  that  distinction  and  subordination  of  office  which, 
until  thS  days  of  Calvin,  characterized,  without  a  single  ex- 
ception, the  Christian  church.  This  we  contend,  as  was  said 
before,  gives  us  possession  of  the  ground,  and  throws  the  bur- 
den of  proof  upon  the  advocates  of  parity. 

"  So  much  then  for  the  Jewish  priesthood.  It  was  a  sha- 
dow of  the  Christian  priesthood,  according  to  the  express 
declaration  of  the  apostle  Paul.  AVhile  the  miscellaneous 
writer  does  not  venture  openly  to  deny  this,  but  rather  seems 
to  admit  it,  in  representing  the  whole  Jewish  system  as  typical, 
he  endeavours,  nevertheless,  in  an  indirect  manner,  to  destroy 
all  relationship  between  the  priesthood  of  the  law  and  of  the 
gospel,  by  dwelling  on  the  variety  of  dress,  with  some  other 
subordinate  points  of  distinction.  Here  he  acts  with  his  usual 
imprudence  ;  tearing  up,  in  his  rage,  against  Episcopacy,  the 
very  foundation  of  the  Christian  faith.!'* 

The  same  analogy  is  thus  traced  by  Cyprian : 

'  "  Why  should  not  the  orders  of  the  priesthood  under  the 
old  economy  be  supposed  to  typify  those  orders  that  were  to 
be  established  under  the  new "?  Besides,  the  fact  is,  that  the 
Christian  dispensation  was  not  so  much  the  abolition,  as  it 
was  the  fulfilment  of  the  Jewish.  Christ  came,  not  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfil  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

'•  It  is  true,  indeed,  we  possess  not  the  Jewish  form  of 
church  government.  We  possess  one,  however,  which  is  the 
consummation  of  the  Jewish — a  government  of  which  the 

•  No.  Vril.  Collec.  p.  110,  111. 


70  Review. 

Jewish  was  an  imperfect  image.  We  possess  a  priesthood 
more  glorious  than  the  Levitical,  inasmuch  as  it  ministers  un- 
der a  more  glorious  dispensation — inasmuch  as  it  performs 
purer  and  more  exalted  offices — inasmuch  as,  in  its  nature 
and  offices,  it  is  the  glorious  substance  which  was  only  faintly 
shadowed  out  under  the  law. 

"  We  think,  therefore,  that  we  stand  on  substantia]  ground 
when  we  maintain  that  we  derive  a  strong  argument  in  de- 
monstration of  the  divine  origin  of  our  form  of  chmxh' govern- 
ment, by  showing  that  on  this  point  the  new  dispensation  is 
made  to  correspond  with  the  old  ;  is  made  the  true  substance 
of  which  the  old  was  the  shadow.  What  the  high  priests,  the 
priests,  and  the  Levites,  were  in  the  temple,  such  are  the 
bishops,  the  presbyters,  and  deacons,  in  the  church  of  Christ. 
This  is  the  uniform  language  of  the  fathers.  This  is  the 
conclusion  to  which  the  data  afforded  us  hy  the  apostles  inev- 
itably lead. 

"  Such  was  the  model  of  church  government  instituted 
by  God  himself,  and  intended  to  be  transmitted  through  all 
ages,  with  modifications  that  should  vary,  no  doubt,  accord- 
ing to  the  varying  circumstances  of  mankind  ;  provided  these 
modifications  affected  not  its  great  and  cardinal  principles. 
We  say  that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  the  image  of  the 
Christian.  We  say  that  it  is  sound  reasoning  to  deduce  the 
probable  form  of  the  substance  from  the  lineaments  of  it  that 
may  be  traced  in  its  image."* 

It  is  somewhat  curious  to  observe  the  rapid 
growth  of  this  argument  from  the  Jewish  to  the 
Episcopal  priesthood.  With  the  Layman  it  is  not 
proof ;  it  is  merely  '•'•presumptive  evidence.,  entitled 
to  real  attention."  By  the  time  it  has  travelled  to 
Cyprian,  it  is  a  "  strong  argument  in  demonstration 

*  No.  VIIT.  Colhc.  p.  HP,  120. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  71 

of  the  divine  origin  of  their  form  of  church  govern- 
ment i^  and  it  places  them,  as  well  it  may,  "on 
substantial  ground."  But  while  we  are  looking 
through  Cyprian's  magnifier,  at  this  Jewish  image 
of  the  "  Christian  priesthood,"  he  suddenly  shifts 
his  glass,  and  the  giant.  Demonstration,  dwindles 
down  again  into  the  dwarf.  Probability.  "  We 
say,"  adds  he,  in  the  next  paragraph,  "  that  it  is 
sound  reasoning  to  deduce  the  probable  form  of 
the  substance  from  the  lineaments  of  it  that  may 
be  traced  in  its  image."  One  hardly  knows  what 
to  do  with  writers  who  drive  their  argument  back- 
wards and  forwards  between  "proof"  and  "pre- 
sumption ;"  between  "  probability"  and  "  demon- 
stration ;"  as  if  a  rational  debate  were  a  game  at 
shuttlecock  !  But  they  are  not  without  excuse ; 
for  to  one  who  can  see  the  tendency  of  this  argu- 
ment of  theirs,  it  is  pretty  clear  that  they  did  not 
know  what  to  do  with  themselves.  For  if,  as  they 
assure  us,  the  Jewish  was  a  typ'e  of  the  Christian 
priesthood — if  the  former  was  "  a  shadow,"  and  a 
"faint  shadow,"  of  which  the  latter  is  the  true 
and  "  glorious  substance,"  then  there  7nust  be  a 
coincidence  between  the  essential  parts  of  the 
type,  and  the  essential  parts  of  the  thing  typified. 
But  according  to  the  divine  institution,  the  three 
orders  of  the  high  priest,  the  priests,  and  Levites, 
were  essential  to  the  legal  priesthood ;  and  if  this 
was  typical  of  the  evangehcal  ^' priesthood,''^  there 
must  of  necessity  be  three  orders  in  that  also.    If 


72  Review. 

it  were  not  so,  the  type  would  not  tally  with  the 
antitype,  the  image  would  not  represent  its  object, 
and  the  end  of  the  typical  system  would  be  de- 
feated. A  body  with  a  head  would  as  soon  cast 
a  shadow  without  one,  as  a  type  of  three  orders 
represent  a  reality  of  two,  five,  or  seven.  This 
reasoning  supposes,  that  the  number  of  orders  en- 
ters into  the  nature  of  the  type  ;  and  on  the  same 
supposition  rests  the  Episcopal  argument.  For 
if  the  number  of  orders  in  the  Jewish  priesthood 
constituted  no  part  of  the  type,  it  is  extreme  weak- 
ness to  mistake  it  for  a  "  demonstration,"  or  even 
a  "  presumption,"  that  there  ought  to  be  three 
orders  in  the  thing  typified.  It  is  producing  your 
type  to  prove  that  the  thing  typified  possesses  a 
property  which  the  type  does  not  exhibit.  The 
fallacy  is  too  obvious  to  impose  upon  a  child. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  number  of  orders  in 
the  Jewish  priesthood  makes  a  part  of  the  type, 
and  the  Christian  ministry  is  the  thing  typified,  the 
conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  there  must  be  three 
orders  in  the  Christian  ministry.  Usuch  a  typical 
relation  really  exists  between  the  ministry  of  the 
old  and  of  the  new  economy,  we  will  lay  down  our 
pen.  Our  cause  is  desperate  ;  the  hierarchy  has 
triumphed,  but  not  a  Protestant  hierarchy.  For 
according  to  all  the  laws  of  typical  analogy,  it  is 
not  more  necessary  that  there  be  three  orders  in 
the  "  Christian  priesthood,"  than  that  the  highest 
order   be  confined  to  a  single  person.     In  this 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  73 

point  the  Jewish  and  the  Episcopal  priesthood 
differ  essentially.  There  is  no  hkeness  between  the 
type  and  the  antitype.  Who,  that  intended  to  in- 
stitute a  set  of  resemblances.,  would  ever  dream  of 
appointing  a  numerous  body  of  Levites  to  repre- 
sent a  numerous  body  of  deacons ;  a  numerous 
body  of  priests  to  represent  another  numerous 
body  of  priests  5  and  then  finish  by  putting  at 
the  head  of  his  system  a  single  high  priest.,  to  re- 
present an  order  often  thousand  bishops  ?  Nay,  if 
the  Episcopal  argument  here  is  sound,  it  con- 
cludes much  more  forcibly  in  favour  of  the  Papal 
than  of  the  Protestant  hierarchy.  The  former 
preserves,  in  her  single  pontiff,  an  essential  feature 
of  the  type,  which  the  latter,  by  her  order  of 
bishops,  has  perfectly  obliterated.  Thus,  then, 
the  case  stands  ;  if  the  typical  character  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood  does  not  include  its  orders,  the 
Episcopal  inference  from  them  in  behalf  of  the 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  is  palpably  false  :  If 
it  does,  while  the  Presbyterian  perishes,  the  church 
of  Rome  gains  much  more  than  the  church  of 
England. 

But  this  notion  of  the  typical  property  of  the 
grades  of  priesthood  in  the  Jewish  church,  is  an 
Episcopal  fiction,  ft  has  no  real  existence.  The 
decisive  proof  is,  that  the  Levitical  priesthood 
typified  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  whom  there 
could  be  no  place  for  different  orders.     Its  several 

grades,  as  such,  had  nothing  to  do  with  its  typical 
Vol.  III.  10 


74  R 


evietv. 


character  and  functions.     These  lay  in  another 
direction  altogether. 

We,  therefore,  advance  a  step  higher,  and  deny 
the  whole  doctrine  of  the  hierarchy,  in  so  far  as  it 
makes  the  Jewish  priesthood  a  type  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry.  The  Layman  has  asserted  that 
"  the  law  being  figurative  of  the  gospel,  in  all  its 
important  parts,  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  ^  of  course, 
typical  of  the  Christian.''^*  To  the  same  purpose 
Cyprian,  "  We  say  that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  the 
image  of  the  Christiany-f  These  are  the  asser- 
tions ;  now  for  the  proof  Cyprian  tells  us,  that  it 
"  is  the  uniform  language  of  the  fathers — the  con- 
clusion to  which  the  data  afforded  us  by  the  apos- 
tles inevitably  lead."  The  Layman,  that  "  for  this," 
viz.  that  the  "  Jewish  priesthood  was  typical  of 
the  Christian,  we  have  the  express  declaration  of  the 
apostle  Paul,''^  and  that  "  the  advocates  of  parity 
will  not  pretend  to  controvert  the  position."  But 
they  certainly  do,  sir;  confident  as  you  are  of  the 
negative.  They  not  only  venture  to  controvert, 
but  engage  to  refute,  your  position.  They  main- 
tain that  the  apostles  have  not  aflforded  any  data 
which  can  lead  to  such  a  conclusion.  Cyprian 
has  mentioned  none  :  and  the  only  passage  which 
the  other  has  quoted  in  his  own  justification,  he 
has  misunderstood  and  misapphed.  The  consid- 
erations which  make  against  them,  are  numerous 
and  weighty. 

*  No.  VIII.  Collcc.  p.  310.  t  No.  IV.  Collec,  p.  320. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  75 

1.  The  scriptures  no  where  draw  a  parallel  or 
comparison  between  the  rank  and  functions  of  the 
ministry  of  the  Old  Testament  and  that  of  the 
New.  And  if  the  former  was  designed  to  be  the 
model  of  the  latter,  the  omission  is  altogether  un- 
accountable. They  neither  say  nor  insinuate  that 
the  priests  under  the  law  were  a  type  and  image 
of  which  the  truth  and  substance  are  to  be  sought 
in  the  ministers  of  the  new  dispensation.  The 
nature  and  use  of  the  legal  institutions  are  ex- 
plained with  minute  accuracy  by  the  Apostle  Paul, 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  He  treats  them  as 
types  of  "Jesus  Christ,  and  all  the  effects  of  his 
mediation  in  grace  and  glory ;"  but  of  their  typi- 
cal relation  to  the  Christian  ministry,  not  a  single 
syllable. 

Here  the  Layman  interrupts  us  with  "  the  ex- 
press declaration  of  the  apostle  Paul."  Let  us 
have  it.  "  The  priests  of  the  law  serving  as  '  the 
example  and  shadow  of  heavenly  things ^^  the  circum- 
stance of  there  being  three  orders  in  the  Jewish 
ministry  furnishes  a  strong  presumption  against 
the  doctrine  of  parity."*  The  "  express  declara- 
tion" of  the  apostle,  it  seems  is,  that  ^'- the  priests  of 
the  law  serve  as  the  example  and  shadow  of  heavenly 
things  ;"t  representing  his  meaning  to  be,  that  the 
priests  of  the  law  are  that  example  and  shadow. 
We  have  a  small  objection  to  this  assertion  of  the 
Layman ;  and  that  is,  that,  like  Cyprian's  story  of 

*  No.  viii.  Collcc.  p.  110.  t  P-  HI- 


76  Review. 

bishop  Epaphroditus,  it  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
the  apostle  a  speech  which  he  never  uttered. 
There  is  neither  in  the  passage  quoted,  nor  in  any 
other  passage  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  nor 
in  the  whole  New  Testament,  such  a  declaration 
as  the  Layman  ascribes  to  Paul.  He  has  either 
quoted  from  memory,  which  we  suspect  to  be  the 
fact,  and  so  has  forgotten  what  the  apostle  said  ; 
or  else  is  as  unlucky  in  his  criticism  as  his  poor 
friend  Cyprian.  The  apostle  says,  "//tc  priests 
who  offer  gifts  according  to  the  Imv,  serve,''"'  not  AS, 
but  "  UNTO  the  example  and  shadow  of  heavenly 
things^  It  was  not  the  priests,  but  the  things  to 
which  they  ministered,  that  constituted  the  "  exam- 
ple and  shadow."  This  is  obvious  upon  the  first 
inspection  of  the  text.*  The  apostle  is  discoursing 
of  the  tabernacle,  its  furniture  and  service.  These 
were  the  "  example  and  shadow."  The  substance, 
the  "  heavenly  things,"  was  Christ  Jesus,  his  sa- 
crifice and  intercession,  with  all  their  blessed  ef- 
fects in  the  salvation  of  men.  This  is  the  apostle's 
own  interpretation.  For  these  same  priests  whom 
he  here  describes  as  "  serving  unto  the  example 
and  shadow  of  heavenly  things,"  he  elsewhere  de- 
scribes as  "  serving  the  to6emac/e."t  The  taberna- 
cle, therefore,  not  the  priests,  were  the  "  example 
and  shadow  of  the  heavenly  things."     And  that 

*  OiTivss  uiroSeij/fittTi  xai  Cxio.  XargJuoutfi  twv  sir'ou^aviwv.    Heb. 
viii.  5. 

f  0(  T-fi  (fXYjvrj  Xct<rgeuovTe5 .  Heb.  xiii.  10. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  77 

this  is  the  apostle's  meaning,  is  "  yet  far  more 
evident."  For  in  the  9th  chapter,  after  detaiUng 
the  construction,  the  furniture,  and  the  service  of 
the  tabernacle,*  he  says  that  this  tabernacle,  thus 
framed,  equipped,  and  attended,  was  a  figure  for 
the  time  then  present.t  "  But  Christ  being  come," 
proceeds  the  apostle,  "  an  high  priest  of  good 
things  to  come,  by  (^through)  a  greater  and  more 
perfect  tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  that  is 
to  say,  not  of  this  building  :  neither  by  the  blood 
of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own  blood,  he  en- 
tered in  once  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained 
eternal  redemption  for  us." 

This  "  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle,"  is 
the  human  nature  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  virtue  of 
the  once  offering  up  of  which  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin, 
he  entered  into  heaven  itself  for  us.  It  is  this  blood 
of  his,  typified  by  the  "  blood  of  goats  and  calves," 
which  "  purges  our  conscience  from  dead  works 
to  serve  the  living  God."  These  are  the  "  good 
things  to  come ;"  these  "  the  heavenly  things,"  of 
which  the  first  tabernacle  was  the  "  example  and 
shadow."  The  "  Christian  priesthood,"  as  it  is 
improperly  and  offensively  termed,  does  not  even 
appear  in  the  comparison.  If  the  Layman  has 
discovered  it  among  the  "  heavenly  things,"  his 
penetration  is  acute  indeed.  Instead,  therefore, 
of  producing  an  "  express  declaration"  of  the 
apostle  to  support  his  doctrine,  he  has  only  put  a 
*  Heb.  xiii.  V.  2—7.  t  v.  9. 


78  Review. 

text  to  needless  torture ;  for  his  witness,  like  Cy- 
prian's in  the  affair  of  Epaphroditus,  knows  no- 
thing of  the  matter. 

It  is  further  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament never  applies  to  the  Christian  ministry 
those  terms  which  express  the  office  of  a  priest, 
and  which  were  invariably  applied  to  the  priest- 
hood of  the  law.  Jesus  Christ  is  called  a  priest, 
an  high  priest,  a  great  high  priest ;  but  not  his 
ministers.  On  the  principle  that  he  is  the  true 
priest  whom  the  priests  of  the  law  prefigured,  this 
is  perfectly  natural.  But  is  it  not  inconceivable, 
that  the  appropriate  title  of  the  priesthood  should 
be  given  to  the  typical  priests ;  to  the  form — to 
the  shadow — and  uniformly  withheld  from  the 
priests  who  are"^  the  substance  represented  by 
them  }  Why  this  change  of  language  }  If  the 
priestly  character,  office,  and  work,  have  been 
fulfilled  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  if  he,  as  the 
sole  priest  of  the  church,  is  now  appearing  in 
heaven  for  us,  the  reason  of  the  change  is  as  clear 
as  noon  day.  There  are  no  more  official  priests, 
there  is  no  more  "  priesthood,"  in. the  church  upon 
earth ;  and  therefore  the  name  is  laid  aside.  But 
if  there  are  such  priests  and  priesthood,  and  if 
these  are  the  very  substance  of  which  the  old 
priests  were  but  a  shadov/,  it  will  baffle  all  the  in- 
genuity of  the  hierarchy  to  the  end  of  time,  to  as- 
sign even  a  tolerable  reason  why  the  spirit  of  wis- 
dom has  refiised  them  their  official  designation, 


Essays  on  Kpiscopacy.  79 

and  has  altered  the  whole  official  style  of  the 
church !  The  ministry  under  the  new  dispensation 
is  represented  as  the  ascension  gift  of  our  glori- 
fied master.*  Ordinary  and  extraordinary  officers 
are  enumerated,  but  not  a  word  of  the  Jewish  or- 
ders being  a  type  of  the  Christian  ministry.  Not 
a  word  of  priests  or  priesthood,  of  altars,  of  sacri- 
fices, or  any  of  the  sacrificial  language  to  which 
the  hierarchy  is  so  devoted.  She  has  thought  fit, 
and  she  shall  answer  for  it,  to  bring  back  and  affix 
to  her  clergy  and  their  functions ;  to  her  sacra- 
mental table  and  its  elements,  a  set  of  denomina- 
tions which  the  Holy  Ghost  not  only  never  annex- 
ed to  the  ministry  and  ordinances  of  his  own 
creation ;  but  which  he  had,  with  pointed  care, 
excluded  from  the  New  Testament ! 

Our  assertion,  therefore,  stands  firm,  that  the 
apostolic  writings  furnish  no  data  which  can  lead 
us  to  the  "  conclusion"  of  Cyprian,  or  the  "  posi- 
tion" of  the  Layman.  Whence,  we  again  ask, 
whence  this  silence  }  Why  is  so  important  a  pro- 
perty of  the  typical  priesthood  overlooked  ?  Is  not 
the  "  glorious  substance,"  of  which  it  was  only  a 
"  faint  shadow,"  so  much  as  worthy  of  notice  }  and 
that  too  in  a  set  treatise  of  the  legal  shadows  and 
their  corresponding  substances  }  It  is  indisputable, 
their  own  words  evince  it,  that  if  the  Layman  and 
Cyprian,  and  their  several  coadjutors,  had  prepar- 
ed such  a  treatise ;  whatever  place  they  might 

*  Eph.  iv.  11. 


80  Revie 


w. 


have  allotted  to  the  "  apostle  and  high  priest  of 
our  profession,"  the  dignity  of  the  episcopal  priest- 
hood would  have  filled  up  one  of  their  most  ani- 
mated chapters.  Having  found  so  much  of  their 
own  image  where  Paul  found  so  little,  it  is  but 
right  to  supply  his  deficiencies,  and  to  adminis- 
ter a  delicate  rebuke  for  his  neghgent  exposition ! 

2.  A  comparison  of  the  Levitical  with  the  Epis- 
copal priesthood,  will  demonstrate  that  the  for- 
mer was  not,  and  could  not  be,  a  type  of  the  latter. 
The  grades  are  ranged  thus : 

Type^  or  Shadow^  Antitype,  or  Substance. 

High-priest,     -     -     -     -     Bishop, 
Priest,  -     .     .     >     Priest, 

Levite,  -     -     _     _     Deacon. 

Now  in  what  do  they  resemble  each  other  } 

Did  the  high  priest  ordain  the  priests  ?  No.  Did 
he  confirm  the  people  ?  No.  Had  he  the  exclusive 
right  of  government  ?  No.  On  the  other  hand  ; 
Do  the  bishops  discharge  any  duty  analogous  to 
the  offering  up  of  the  yearly  sacrifice  on  the  great 
day  of  expiation  ?  No.  Have  they  the  peculiar 
privilege  of  entering  into  the  immediate  presence 
of  God  ?  No.  Is  the  oracle  of  God  attached  to 
their  persons  }  or  have  they  any  special  right  of 
declaring  the  divine  will  ?  No.  He  who  has  saga- 
city enough  to  detect  in  the  appropriate  functions 
of  the  high  priest  any  thing  that  deserves  to  be 
called  a  type  of  the  functions  appropriated  to  a 
Christian  bishop,  can  never  be  at  a  loss  for  type 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  81 

and  antitype,  so  long  as  any  two  objects  remain 
within  the  bible  or  without  it.  Their  prerogatives 
and  offices  are  so  absolutely  dissimilar,  that  to 
make  the  one  an  image  of  the  other,  is  to  pour 
overwhelming  ridicule  upon  the  whole  system  of 
typical  ordinances.  The  success  will  not  be  much 
better,  if  we  go  down  to  the  second  and  third 
grades  of  the  priesthood.  If  the  reader  has  an 
hour  which  he  cannot  employ  more  profitably,  he 
may  throw  it  away  in  hunting  for  likenesses  be- 
tween the  priests  of  the  law  and  of  the  gospel ; 
between  the  Levite  and  the  Episcopal  deacon. 
We  have  enough  of  it.  Our  argument  is  this,  that 
as  typical  officers  must  have  typical  functions,  if 
the  functions  of  the  legal  priesthood  did  not  typify 
those  of  the  Christian,  then  was  not  the  one 
priesthood  a  type  of  the  other.  To  insist  upon 
a  typical  meaning  in  the  number  of  orders,  and  to 
discard  as  mere  circumstances,  the  respective 
functions  of  those  orders,  is  a  distinction  which 
reason  laughs  at,  and  a  sound  head  will  hardly 
adopt. 

3.  As  typical  officers  and  typical  functions  are 
correlate  ideas,  the  former  necessarily  implying 
the  latter,  we  remark,  that  if  the  Jewish  priest- 
hood prefigured  the  Christian  ministry,  as  a  type 
its  antitype,  then  it  follows,  that  we  have  in  the 
functions  of  the  priesthood  now,  the  substance  of 
that  which  in  the  functions  of  the  Levitical  priest- 
hood was  only  a  type.     That  is,  the  priests  now 

Vol.  III.  1 1 


82  Review, 

offer  up  the  true  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  are  our  me- 
diators and  intercessors  with  God,  upon  the  foot- 
ing of  their  sacrifice.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
the  jjt'iestly  office  of  old  was  typical ;  and  its  sac- 
rifices typical.  Whoever,  then,  is  the  real  priest, 
ofters  the  real  sacrifice.  But  he  is  the  real  priest 
of  whom  the  priests  of  the  law  were  a  type.  And 
the  priests  of  the  law  were  a  type,  says  the  hie- 
rarchy, of  our  priesthood  :  therefore  the  priest- 
hood of  the  hierarchy  offer  up  the  true  sacrifice 
for  sin !  There  is  no  getting  rid  of  the  conclusion. 
The  apostle  Paul  reasons  in  the  same  manner, 
from  the  typical  relation  of  the  old  priests  and  their 
sacrifices  to  Jesus  Christ  and  his  sacrifice.  He 
insists,  that  because  they  were  shadows  and  Christ 
the  substance,  therefore  Christ,  the  true  priest, 
has  put  away  sin  by  the  oflfering  up  of  himself  as 
the  true  sacrifice.  We  see  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  hierarchy  is  irreconcileable  with  that  of  the 
apostle.  He  teaches  that  the  Levitical  priest- 
hood and  their  offerings  were  typical  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  offerings.  The  hierarchy  teaches 
that  the  Levitical  priesthood  typified  the  evangel- 
ical ministry.  Both  cannot  be  true.  The  same 
type  cannot  signify  a  single  high  priest  who  offer- 
ed up  a  true  and  proper  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  an 
order  of  priests  who  offer  up  no  such  sacrifice. 
If  Christ  is  the  substance  of  the  legal  priesthood, 
the  Episcopal  hierarchy  is  not.  If  that  hierarchy 
is  the  substance,  Jesus  Christ  is  not.   The  reader 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  83 

has  his  choice,  whether  he  will  side  with  the 
hierarchy  at  the  expense  of  the  apostle,  or  with 
the  apostle  at  the  expense  of  the  hierarchy !  Whe- 
ther he  will  look  for  the  substance  of  the  Levitical 
priesthood  in  the  Son  of  God  and  his  mediatorial 
work,  or  in  the  administration  of  the  Episcopal 
clergy  !  Whether — But  we  check  ourselves.  A 
stranger  instance  of  infatuated  zeal  has  rarely  oc- 
curred. The  genius  of  the  Old  Testament  types 
shall  be  perverted ;  their  beautiful  correspondence 
with  their  objects  shall  be  marred ;  the  principle 
of  a  whole  book  of  the  New  Testament,  (the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,)  shall  be  set  aside;  but  an 
argument,  though  merely  a  presumptive  one,  for 
the  hierarchy,  shall  not  be  given  up ! 

The  only  escape  from  this  dilemma  appears  to 
be  through  a  distinction  between  the  particular 
character  of  the  Old  Testament  priests  as  such, 
and  their  general  character  as  ministers  of  reli- 
gion. It  may  be  yielded,  that  in  the  former  they 
were  types  of  Christ;  and  maintained  that  in  the 
latter  they  were  types  of  the  Christian  ministry. 
The  distinction  is  of  no  avail ;  and  its  best  effect 
is  to  protract  the  death  of  the  Episcopal  plea  for 
a  minute  longer.  If  both  their  particular  charac- 
ter as  priests,  and  their  general  character  as  min- 
isters of  religion  were  typical,  they  were  nothing 
but  types.  The  worship  which  they  offered  up 
v,'as  typical  worship ;  their  prayers  were  typical 
prayers;  their  instructions  to  the  people,  typical 


84  Review. 

instructions.  The  church  in  which  they  minister- 
ed was  a  typical  church.  All  was  type.  There 
was  no  reality.  But  this  is  absurd.  God  had  as 
real  a  church,  and  dispensed  as  real  blessings,  by 
real  ministers  before,  as  since,  the  evangelical 
dispensation.  Whatever  typical  ordinances  might 
be  set  up,  the  church  itself  never  was  a  type.  It 
is  a  ivhole.,  and  one  part  of  a  whole  cannot  be  a 
type  of  another  part.  And  as  there  were  real 
ministers  in  a  real  church  under  the  law,  if  you 
will  have  them  to  be  types  in  their  general  cha- 
racter, you  make  the  ministry  of  the  church  at  one 
period  and  in  one  form,  the  type  of  her  ministry 
at  another  period  under  another  form.  This  is  a 
contradiction.  For  the  same  persons  could  not 
be,  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the  exercise  of  the 
same  functions,  under  the  same  relations,  both 
shadow  and  substance.  It  destroys  also  the  na- 
ture of  the  church  of  God ;  giving  us  all  type  be- 
fore the  new  dispensation,  and  all  substance  after 
it.  So  that  in  fact,  according  to  the  scheme  we 
are  considering,  there  was  no  such  thing  as  a 
church  at  all  under  the  law,  but  only  the  shadow 
of  a  church.  We  have  one  step  further  in  this 
typical  climax.  The  sinners  under  the  law  were 
only  typical  sinners  ;  the  saints  only  typical  saints ; 
the  salvation  of  the  soul  only  a  typical  salvation ; 
and  for  aught  we  can  see,  the  God  of  salvation 
only  a  typical  God  ! 

View  it  in  any  hght  you  choose  :  The  doctrine 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  85 

of  the  Layman,  Cyprian,  &c.  concerning  the  Old 
Testament  types,  is  inconsistent  with  itself;  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  apostle  Paul,  and  with  all  the 
known  relations  of  type  and  antitype.  Yet  while 
they  are  spreading  this  confusion  ;  while  they  are 
displaying  the  most  absolute  want  of  acquaintance 
with  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  they 
have  the  assurance  to  tell  us  that  if  we  "  have 
proved  that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  not  typical 
of  the  Christian,  we  have  proved  equally  that  the 
law  was  not  a  shadow  of  the  gospel:  thus  destroy- 
ing effectually,  all  connexion  between  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New."*  It  seems,  then,  that 
although  we  have  Christ  the  true  priest  and  true 
sacrifice;  and  the  effects  of  his  mediation  in 
pardoning  sin,  in  purging  the  conscience,  and  in 
presenting  an  efficacious  intercession  before  God 
in  the  highest  heavens — we  have  nothing  to  the 
purpose ;  we  are  "  destroying  the  whole  Christian 
dispensation ;"  we  are  doing  ^'  much  more  to  the 
support  of  infidelity,  than  of  any  other  cause  ;"t 
we  are  tearing  up  the  very  foundations  of  the 
Christian  faith" — Why  ? — ^because  we  will  not  ad- 
mit the  episcopal  clergy  to  be  the  substance  of 
which  the  Levitical  priesthood  was  only  the 
shadow!  It  is  amazing,  it  is  humiliating,  that 
men  who  have  need  that  one  teach  them  ichich  be  the 
first  prineiples  of  the  oracles  of  GocL  should  talk  so 
confidently.     Nay,  in  the  very  act  of  sanctioning 

*  Layman,  No.  viii.  p.  110.  \  P.  110. 


86  Review. 

all  this  misconception,  misconstruction,  and  wrest- 
ing of  the  scriptures,  Mr.  H.  has  permitted  him- 
self to  ask  Dr.  Linn,  whether  he  is  "  really  igno- 
rant of  the  nature  of  the  types  of  scripture,"  or 
whether  he  is  "  guilty  of  wilful  misrepresentation  ?"* 
Such  questions  as  these  ought  not  to  have  been 
put  by  Mr.  Hobart. 

So  much  for  the  first  fact  to  which  the  dispu- 
tants for  the  hierarchy  have  appealed. 

Their  second  fact,  is  the  triple  order  of  the 
"  priesthood"  during  our  Lord's  personal  converse 
with  men. 

"  Whilst  our  Saviour  remained  on  earth,"  (says  Cyprian,) 
"  he,  of  course,  held  supreme  authority  in  his  church.  The 
twelve  were  appointed  by  him  as  his  subordinate  officers.  The 
seventy  disciples  constituted  a  still  lower  order.  There  exist- 
ed, then,  in  the  church  of  Christ,  at  this  time,  three  distinct 
grades  of  ministers.  When  our  Lord  ascended  into  heaven, 
when  he  breathed  upon  the  twelve,  and  said,  "  As  my  father 
hath  sent  me,  so  send  I  you,"  he  transmitted  to  them  the  same 
authority  which  he  himself  had  retained  during  his  continuance 
amongst  them  :  the  twelve  commissioned  their  presbyters  and 
deacons  to  aid  them  in  the  administration  of  ecclesiastical  go- 
vernment. Before  their  death  they  constituted  an  order  of 
ministers  to  whom  they  conveyed  that  supreme  authority  in 
the  church  which  was  lodged  in  their  hands  during  their 
lives. "t 

Thus,  also,  the  Layman  : 

"  Jesus  Christ  commissioned  twelve,  and  the  seventy ;  but 
he  gave  them  no  authority  to  commission  others.  The  high 
power  of  ordination  was  exercised  by  himself  alone.     Here, 

*  Note  to  CoUec.  p.  37.  f  Cyprian,  No.  II.  CoUec.  p,  62. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  87 

then,  were  three  orders ;  our  Saviour,  the  great  head  of  the 
church  ;  the  twelve  apostles  ;  and  the  seventy  disciples."* 

We  should  be  much  entertained,  and  possibly 
edified,  by  the  history  of  the  three  orders  and  their 
succession,  as  compiled  by  the  Layman  and  his 
learned  colleague,  were  we  not  disturbed  by  some 
difficulties  which  we  cannot  well  remove. 

Our  first  difficulty,  as  to  this  second  stage  of  the 
triple  order,  relates  to  John  the  Baptist.  He  was 
certainly  the  Redeemer's  messenger,  and  exercis- 
ed a  contemporary  ministry.  Why  is  he  left  out 
of  the  hst  ?  His  extraordinary  functions  cannot 
be  the  reason ;  for  those  of  his  master  were  more 
extraordinary  than  his  own.  But  he  was  neither 
the  Christ,  nor  one  of  the  twelve,  nor  one  of  the 
seventy.  If  you  take  him  into  the  catalogue,  you 
have /o?/r  orders;  if  you  leave  him  out,  you  must 
leave  out  his  master  likewise ;  and  then  you  will 
have  but  two.  In  either  way  the  history  of  the 
hierarchy  sticks.  .  ^ 

Our  next  difficulty  relates  to  the  co-existence  of 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  priesthoods.  The  church 
of  God  was  either  organized  under  the  Christian 
form,  during  our  Lord's  continuance  upon  earth, 
or  not.  If  not,  there  was  no  Christian  priesthood, 
and  consequently  no  orders  of  priesthood.  If  she 
was,  then  did  she  actually  subsist  under  two  forms 
at  the  same  time.  For  it  is  certain  that  the  legal 
form  remained,  till  the  offering  up  of  the  "  word 

*  Layman,  No.  IX.  Collec  p.  153. 


88  R 


evicw. 


made  flesh,"  in  sacrifice  for  sin.  Moreover,  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  indubitably  the  head  of  the 
church  under  her  Jewish  form.  She  was,  with  her 
whole  system  of  worship,  his  property.  He  came 
vnto  his  own*  He  was  in  the  temple,  the  lord  of 
the  temple,  and  acted  as  such.  Now  if  his  per- 
sonal presence  as  the  head  of  the  church  made 
him  an  order  in  her  evangelical  ministry,  that  same 
presence  in  the  Jewish  church  made  him  one  of 
the  orders  of  the  Jewish  priesthood.  Admit  this, 
and  we  are  troubled  with  an  additional  order  in 
that  priesthood ;  deny  it,  and  we  have  lost  one  of 
the  Christian  orders.  The  former  compels  us  to 
take  fonr^  the  latter  allows  us  but  tivo.  Scylla  and 
Charybdis  over  again  for  the  history  of  the  three 
orders ! 

Our  third  difficulty  relates  to  the  principle  upon 
which,  in  the  present  case,  the  triple  order  is 
founded.  The  Layman  and  Cyprian,  as  a  shoal 
of  other  writers  had  done  before  them,  work  up 
the  apostles  and  seventy  disciples  into  two  orders 
of  priesthood ;  and  that  their  canonical  number 
might  not  be  wanting,  they  complete  it  by  adding 
the  Redeemer  himself ! 

Now,  we  had  always  thought,  with  the  apostle 
Paul,  that  Christ  was  faithful  as  a  son  over  his  own 
house:  that  the  church  itself  is  the  house;  and  that 
all  the  ministers  of  the  church  are  his  servants.  It 
was  really  a  stroke  worthy  of  "  giants  in  theology," 

*  El?  Ta  lAlA  /jX^s.    John  i.  11. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  89 

to  make  the  Lord  himself  one  of  the  orders  among 
his  own  servants  !  And  seeing  that  his  assent  into 
heaven  never  stript  him  of  any  relation  to  his 
church,  and  that  he  actually  exercises  the  priestly 
office  at  this  moment  before  the  throne  of  God, 
the  consequence  is,  either  that  there  are  now  four 
orders  of  the  priesthood,  or  that  there  were  but 
hvo  in  the  days  of  his  flesh.  The  same  perplexity 
stares  the  hierarchy  once  more  in  the  face  ;  and  if 
she  will  have  three  orders,  neither  more  nor  less, 
she  must  depose  her  master  in  order  to  make 
way  for  her  bishops  ! 

Our  fourth  difficulty  relates  to  the  nature  of  the 
succession. 

Christ  transmitted  to  the  twelve,  says  Cyprian, 
"  the  same  authority  which  he  himself  had  retained 
during  his  continuance  among  them;  and  the 
twelve  commissioned  their  presbyters  and  dea- 
cons to  aid  them  in  the  administration  of  ecclesi- 
astical government,"  and  "  before  their  death, 
constituted  an  order  of  ministers  to  whom  they 
conveyed"  their  own  "  supreme  authority.'''' 

Some  how  or  other,  we  have  lost  the  seventy 
disciples  in  this  arrangement.  Probably  they  were 
promoted  to  bishopricks.  However  that  be,  the 
descent  of  "  power"  is  very  distinctly  stated. 
Christ  conveyed  the  same  authority  which  he  him- 
self exercised  to  the  apostles ;  and  the  apostles 
conveyed  the  same  authority  which  they  exercised 
to  the  order  which  they  constituted  before  their 

Vol.  III.  12 


90  Review. 

death ;  that  is,  the  order  of  bishops.  So,  then, 
the  order  of  bishops  have  now  the  very  same  au- 
thority which  Christ  himself  had  when  he  was  upon 
earth !  But  Christ  was  the  "  lord  and  master"  of 
the  church ;  so  are  the  Bishops ;  and  for  that  rea- 
son are  very  properly  styled,  in  some  places,  Ziorcfe 
bishops!  Christ  was  XhQ  proprietor  of  the  church — 
so  are  the  bishops,  no  doubt !  Christ  had  autho- 
rity to  appoint  sacraments  and  to  mould  the  go- 
vernment of  his  church  according  to  his  pleasure  : 
so  have  the  bishops,  beyond  controversy !  It  seems, 
then,  that  they  are  the  successours  not  so  much  of 
the  apostles,  as  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself  : 
that  he  is  gone  away  to  heaven,  and  has  deputed 
to  them  m  solidum^  by  the  lump,  the  whole  autho- 
rity which  he  himself  possessed !  A  fair  inheritance 
we  own ;  and  very  goodly  heirs !  Having  estab- 
lished this  point,  we  wonder  that  they  put  them- 
selves to  any  further  trouble  in  making  out  their 
title  to  "the  pre-eminence !"  There  is  a  short  cut 
to  the  resolution  of  every  difficulty  about  the  affairs 
of  the  church,  and  every  thing  else.  Go  to  the 
bishops  !  Christ  had  unlimited  authority  over  the 
conscience,  and  they  have  succeeded  him.  Eccle- 
siastical history  is  not  barren  of  instances  wherein 
they  have  acted  up  to  the  spirit  of  their  trust.  Eng- 
land can  witness,  that,  in  one  day,  they  threw 
upon  the  mercy  of  the  persecutor,  and  the  comforts 
of  famine,  two  thousand  of  the  best  men  and  the 
most  glorious  minister!^  of  the  gospel,  that  ever 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  91 

blessed  a  nation  or  adorned  a  church :  and  a  great 
proportion  of  them  for  not  submitting  to  imposi- 
tions upon  conscience  for  which  the  warrant  of 
the  divine  word  was  not  so  much  as  pretended. 
But  the  Episcopal  warrant  was  perfectly  clear: 
and  the  Puritans  were  righteously  deprived  for 
not  bowing  to  the  successours  of  Jesus  Christ ! 
"  Come  set  us  the  five  mile  act  to  music."*  Let 
us  compensate  the  fast  of  the  30th  January  for 
the  martyrdom  of  Charles,t  with  the  festival  of 
St.  Bartholomew's,!  for  the  judgment  of  the  Pres- 
byterians ! 

*  An  act  of  17th  Charles  II.  by  which  non-conformist  ministers 
were  prohibited,  unless  in  crossing  the  road,  to  come  or  be,  on  any 
pretence  whatever,  after  March  24th,  16G5,  within /w  miles  of  any 
city,  town  corporate,  or  borough  that  sent  burgesses  topariiament; 
or  within  five  miles  of  any  parish,  town,  or  place,  wherein  they 
had,  since  the  act  of  oblivion,  been  parson,  vicar,  or  lecturer,  &c.; 
or  where  they  had  preached  in  any  conventicle. 

f  Charles  I.  of  tyrannical  memory,  was  beheaded  on  the  30th 
January,  1649.  He  called  himself,  and  was  called  by  some  others, 
a  martyr.  The  anniversary  of  his  martyrdom  has  afforded  the 
High  church  clergy  many  fine  opportunities  for  displaying  their 
zeal  for  "  the  church,"  and  mourning  over  her  calamities. 

X  The  famous  ^^  Act  for  the  uniformity  of  public  prayers  and 
administration  of  sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  ceremonies,  ^*c.,  in 
the  church  of  England  ;^^  which  received  the  royal  assent  on  the 
19th  May,  1662,  and  took  effect  on  the  24th  of  August  following, 
being  St.  Bartholomew's  day.  Assent  and  consent  to  its  provisions 
were  to  be  declared  by  that  day,  on  pain  of  deprivation  of  their 
livings,  if  the  offenders  were  in  the  ministry;  and  if  schoolmasters 
or  tutors,  three  months  imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  five  pounds  ster- 
ling. About  tivo  thousand  ministers  could  not,  with  a  good  con- 
science, comply;  and  they  were  deprived  accordingly. 


92 


Revieiv. 


They  who  can  persuade  themselves  that  the 
Episcopal  prelates  enjoy  the  same  power,  which 
was  vested  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  are  welcome 
to  their  consolation.  We  are,  as  yet,  a  great  ways 
off  from  the  hne  of  converts. 

Our  fifth  difficulty  relates  to  the  question,  whe- 
ther the  twelve  were  really  a  superiour  order  to 
the  seventy  ?  We  cannot  perceive  in  the  New 
Testament  any  characters  of  such  superiority. 
On  comparing  the  history  of  their  appointment, 
we  find  their  commission  was  the  same  both  in 
form  and  in  substance ;  that  they  had  the  same 
powers,  the  same  instructions,  the  same  cautions, 
the  same  support ;  in  short,  that  their  whole  mis- 
sion was  the  same.  Let  any  man  of  common  can- 
dour read  the  account  of  it  in  Matthew  and  Luke ; 
and  let  him  discover,  if  he  can,  any  thing  that 
bears  the  semblance  of  a  superiour  and  inferiour 
order.  To  facilitate  his  inquiry  we  subjoin  the 
passages  alluded  to — 


The  Twelve  : 
Matthew  ix.  37 — x.  16. 

"  Then  saith  he  unto  his 
disciples,  The  harvest  truly  is 
plenteous,  but  the  labourers  are 
few.  Pray  ye  therefore,  the 
Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he 
will  send  forth  labourers  into 
his  harvest.  And  when  he 
had  called  unto  him  his  twelve 
disciples,  he  gave  them  power 


The  Seventy  : 
Luke  X.  1 — 16. 
"  After  these  things  the 
Lord  appointed  other  seventy 
also,  and  sent  them  two  and 
two  before  his  face  into  every 
city  and  place  whither  he  him- 
self would  come.  Therefore 
said  he  unto  them.  The  harvest 
truly  is  great,  but  the  labourers 
are  few  :  pray  ye  therefore,  the 


Essays  on  Episcopacy. 


93 


The  Twelve. 
against  unclean  spirits,  to  cast 
them  out ;  and  to  heal  all 
manner  of  sickness,  and  all 
manner  of  disease.  Now  the 
names  of  the  twelve  apostles 
are  these ;  the  first,  Simon, 
who  is  called  Peter,  and  An- 
drew his  brother;  James  the 
son  of  Zebedee,  and  John  his 
brother ;  Philip  and  Bartho- 
lomew ;  Thomas  and  Matthew 
the  publican ;  James  the  son 
of  Alpheus,  and  Lebbeus, 
whose  surname  was  Thad- 
deus.  Simon  the  Canaanite, 
and  Judas  Iscariot  who  also 
betrayed  him.  These  twelve 
Jesus  sent  forth, and  command- 
ed them,  saying,  Go  not  into 
the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
into  any  city  of  the  Samai'itans 
enter  ye  not :  but  go  rather  to 
the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel.  And,  as  ye  go,  preach, 
saying.  The  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven is  at  hand.  Heal  the  sick, 
cleanse  the  lepers,  raise  the 
dead,  cast  out  devils  ;  freely 
ye  have  received,  freely  give. 
Provide  neither  gold,  nor  sil- 
ver, nor  brass,  in  your  purses  ; 
nor  scrip  for  your  journey,  nei- 
ther two  coats,  neither  shoes, 
nor  yet  staves  ;  for  the  work- 
man is  worthy  of  his  meat. 
And  into  whatsoever  city  or 
town  ye  shall  enter,  inquire 
who  in  it  is  worthy  ;  and  there 


The  Seventy. 
Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he 
would  send  forth  labourers  in- 
to his  harvest.  Go  your  ways  : 
behold,  I  send  you  forth  as 
lambs  among  wolves.  Carry 
neither  purse,  nor  scrip,  nor 
shoes :  and  salute  no  man  by 
the  way.  And  into  whatso- 
ever house  ye  enter,  first  say, 
Peace  be  to  this  house.  And 
if  the  son  of  peace  be  there, 
your  peace  shall  rest  upon  it : 
if  not,  it  shall  turn  to  you  again. 
And  in  the  same  liouse  remain, 
eating  and  drinking  such  things 
as  they  give  :  for  the  labourer 
is  worthy  of  his  hire.  Go  not 
from  house  to  house.  And 
into  whatsoever  city  ye  enter, 
and  they  receive  you,  eat  such 
things  as  are  set  before  you  ; 
and  heal  the  sick  that  are 
therein  :  and  say  unto  them, 
The  kingdom  of  God  is  come 
nigh  unto  you.  But  into  what- 
soever city  ye  enter,  and  they 
receive  you  not,  go  your  ways 
out  into  the  streets  of  the  same, 
and  say.  Even  the  very  dust  of 
your  city,  which  cleaveth  on 
us,  we  do  wipe  off  against  you : 
notwithstanding,  be  ye  sure  of 
this,  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  come  nigh  unto  you.  But  1 
say  unto  you,  That  it  shall  be 
more  tolerable  in  that  day  for 
Sodom  than  for  that  city.  Wo 
unto  thee,  Chorazin  !  wo  unto 


94 


Review. 


Tide  Seventy. 

thee,  Bethsaida  !  foi*  if  the 
mighty  works  had  been  done 
in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  which 
liave  been  done  in  you,  they 
had  a  great  while  ago  repent- 
ed, sitting  in  sackcloth  and 
ashes.  But  it  shall  be  more 
tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon 
at  the  judgment  than  for  you. 
And  thou,  Capernaum,  which 
art  exalted  to  heaven,  shaltbe 
thrust  down  to  hell.  He  that 
heareth  you,  heareth  me  ;  and 
he  that  despiseth  you,  despi- 
seth  me  ;  and  he  that  despiseth 
me,  despiseth  him  that  sent 
me." 


The  Twelve. 

abide  till  ye  go  thence.  And 
when  ye  come  into  an  house, 
salute  it.  And  if  the  house  be 
worthy,  let  your  peace  come 
upon  it :  but  if  it  be  not  wor- 
thy, let  your  peace  return  to 
you.  And  whosoever  shall  not 
receive  you,  nor  hear  your 
words,  when  ye  depart  out  of 
that  house  or  city,  shake  oft' 
the  dust  of  your  feet.  Verily 
I  say  unto  you.  It  shall  be 
more  tolerable  for  the  land  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  in  the 
day  of  judgment,  than  for  that 
city.  Behold,  I  send  you  forth 
as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves ; 
be  ye  therefore  wise  as  ser- 
pents, and  harmless  as  doves. 
He  that  receiveth  you,  receiv- 
eth  me  ;  and  he  that  receiveth 
me,   receiveth    him  that  sent 


If,  after  all,  the  twelve  were  an  order  superiour 
to  the  seventy,  the  evidence,  whether  in  these  or 
other  parts  of  the  evangelical  narrative,  is  too  sub- 
tle for  our  clumsy  senses.  The  Layman,  however, 
whose  perceptions  are  not  so  dull,  has  been  more 
fortunate.     Let  us  betake  ourselves  to  his  aid. 

"  The  twelve,"  says  he,  "  were  superiour  to  the 
seventy,  both  in  dignify  and^o?(;er." 

They  were  superiour  in  "  dignity^ 

How  is  this  proved  ?  Thus — 

1.  "The  apostles  are  every  where  spoken  of, 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  95 

as  the  constant  attendants  of  our  Lord."  Tlicic- 
fore,  they  were  of  a  higher  rank  than  the  seventy ! 
The  Layman  is  as  active  as  he  is  sharp-sighted ; 
but  the  ditch  between  his  premises  and  his  conclu- 
sion being  rather  too  wide  for  us  to  leap,  we  can- 
not conveniently  follow  him. 

But  the  Layman  has  forgotten  that  there  were 
others,  beside  the  apostles,  who  are  mentioned  as 
the  constant  attendants  of  our  Lord,*  and  who  re- 
ceived from  that  circumstance  no  pre-eminence  of 
authority  whatever.  The  Layman's  first  argu- 
ment, then,  is  "  good  for  nothing." 

2.  "  The  commission  of  the  apostles  was  much 
more  general"  than  that  of  the  seventy.  The  lat- 
ter "were  sent  before  our  Lord  into  the  cities 
whither  he  himself  ivould  come.''''  The  former  were 
directed  "  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  the  Jews." 
A  minister,  therefore,  who  should  be  instructed  to 
make  a  preaching  tour  through  the  United  States, 
would  be  of  a  higher  grade  than  one  whose  la- 
bours should  be  confined  to  the  state  of  Nev/ 
York.  If  this  argument  of  the  Layman  is  not 
very  satisfactory,  it  is  at  least  ingenious.  There 
is  something  vastly  pleasant  in  regulating  the 
grandeur  of  the  priesthood  by  the  length  of  a  jour- 
ney; and  determining  its  grades  with  a  pair  of 
geographical  compasses ! 

3.  "  The  inauguration  of  the  twelve  was  much 

*  Acts  i.  21. 


96  Review. 

more  solemn  than  that  of  the  seventy."  Therefore, 
they  must  be  of  a  superiour  order.  Because  all 
the  world  knows  that  it  is  impossible  to  appoint, 
though  on  different  occasions,  officers  of  the  same 
rank  without  the  very  same  degree  of  solemnity. 
This  is  demonstration!  Is  it  not,  good  reader .f* 
But  in  what  was  the  inauguration  of  the  twelve 
more  solemn  than  that  of  the  seventy? 

"  In  relation  to  the  first,"  replies  the  Layman,  "  we  find 
our  Saviour  directing  his  disciples  to  pray  to  God  to  send 
labourers  into  the  harvest.  We  find  him  continuing  himself 
a  whole  night  in  prayer.  In  the  inauguration  of  the  seventy 
there  was  nothing  of  all  this  solemnity."     P.  154. 

Nothing  !  if  we  read  our  bible  correctly,  there 
is  the  same  direction  about  prayer  to  the  Lord  of 
the  harvest,  for  labourers  in  his  harvest,  coupled 
with  the  mission  of  the  seventy,  and  of  the  twelve. 
With  respect  to  his  continuing  in  prayer  the  whole 
night  previous  to  the  choice  of  his  apostles,  is  the 
Layman  sure  that  their  appointment  was  the  spe- 
cial cause  of  our  Lord's  being  thus  employed } 
That  he  never  prayed  in  this  manner  upon  any 
other  occasion  }  And  particularly,  before  the  elec- 
tion of  the  seventy  }  And  supposing  him  to  be  sure 
of  all  this  ;  how  does  it  affect  relative  dignity  ^ 
Christ  prayed  all  night  before  appointing  the 
twelve,  and  not  before  appointing  the  seventy, 
therefore,  the  twelve  were  a  superiour  order  of 
ministers  !  It  seems,  then,  that  it  was  not  preach- 
ing the  gospel,  nor  performing  mighty  works  in 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  97 

his  name,  which  lay  so  near  the  Saviour's  heart 
when  he  was  about  to  send  forth  his  messengers, 
as  to  engage  him  all  night  in  prayer ;  but  it  was 
the  desire  to  set  off  a  superiour  order  of  them  with 
suitable  eclat ! — When  the  tivelve  are  to  be  com- 
missioned, he  prays  all  night.  When  the  seventy 
are  to  be  commissioned,  he  is  not  at  the  same 
trouble;  and  this  merely  to  show  that  they  are 
not  of  such  high  dignity  as  the  others  !  Poor  dis- 
ciples !  To  have  the  same  duties  and  the  same 
trials  with  your  twelve  superiours,  and  much  less 
interest  in  your  master's  affections  and  prayers  ! 
It  was  no  small  matter,  we  see,  to  be  a  bishop  or 
something  like  one,  in  the  days  of  his  flesh  :  And 
if  the  Layman  will  undertake  to  prove  that  the 
successour-bishops  have  still  the  same  enviable 
privilege,  we  shall  not  refuse  him  the  praise  of 
courage !  However,  if  they  act  up  to  the  principle 
of  his  argument,  there  is  one  inference  which  we 
think  may  be  drawn  from  it -with  rather  clearer 
evidence  than  his  own  for  the  pre-eminence  of  the 
apostles  abov^e  the  seventy;  and  thatis,  that  when 
the  hierarchy  is  about  ordaining  bishops,  she 
prays  most  fervently ;  and  when  presbyters  are  to 
be  ordained,  she  does  not  think  it  worth  while  to 
pray  at  all ! 

The  Layman  proceeds : 

"  The  apostles  were,  likewise,  superiour,"  viz.  to  the  seventy, 
'■'■'m  power.''''     p.  154 

How  is  this  proved  ?  Thus  : 

Vol.  III.  13 


98  Review. 

"  They  alone  received  the  commission  to  offer  the  eucha- 
ristic  sacrifice  of  bread  and  wine." 

We  stay  not  to  comment  on  the  popish  style  of 
this  passage.  "  Eucharistic  sacrifice .'"  The  scrip- 
ture knows  neither  the  nanfe  nor  the  thing,  in  re- 
ference to  the  commemoration  of  our  Lord's  death 
in  the  sacrament  of  the  supper.  The  Layman's 
argument  for  the  superiority  of  the  twelve  is,  that 
they  alone  were  authorized  to  administer  this  sa- 
crament. Indeed !  How,  then,  came  it  to  be  ad- 
ministered by  the  Episcopal  priests  who  are  not 
the  successours  of  the  apostles.'*  Either  this  power 
does  not  prove  superiority  of  rank,  or  else  the 
hierarchy  has  transferred  to  an  inferiour  order, 
one  of  the  pecuhar  functions  of  the  superiour; 
and  thus  corrupted  the  institutions  of  Christ.  The 
Layman  has  his  option.  It  will  not  be  possible 
to  evade  the  alternative  ;  because  the  Lord's  sup- 
per is  an  ordinance  of  perpetual  obligation,  and 
could  not  be  administered  by  the  apostles  till  af- 
ter his  death;  nor  is  there  a  shadow  of  proof  that 
it  was  ever  administered  by  them  till  after  his  as- 
cension, and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at 
Pentecost.  Prove  what  it  will,  it  cannot  prove 
the  superiority  of  the  twelve  above  the  seventy  • 
during  his  abode  upon  earth.  And  what  is  more, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  institution  of  the  supper  to 
express  the  conveyance  of  authority  to  administer 
it.  There  is  nothing  but  the  appointment  of  it 
for  the  observation  of  the  church.     This  do  in  re- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  99 

membrance  of  me ;  for  as  often  as  ye  cat  this  bread 
and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord^s  death  till  he 
come.  But  all  communicants  "do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  him,"  they  all  "show  forth  his  death," 
in  the  holy  supper,  as  much  as  did  the  apostles. 
The  commission  to  administer  the  sacraments, 
and  govern  the  church,  was  not  given  till  the  very 
moment  of  his  departure  from  earth. 

In  the  next  place  : 

"  To  the  twelve,"  says  the  Layman,  *'  were  twelve  thrones 
appointed,  whereon  they  should  sit,  judging  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel."     P.  154. 

As  this  language  is  altogether  symbolical,  he 
should  have  fixed  his  meaning  before  he  quoted  it 
as  a  proof.  This  he  has  not  done,  and  it  is  not 
our  business  to  do  it  for  him.  But  Cyprian  has 
conceded  that  Christ  held,  in  his  own  hands,  the 
supreme  authority  while  he  was  on  earth;  the 
Layman  himself  has  told  us,  that  the  twelve  dur- 
ing this  period,  had  not  the  power  of  ordination ; 
and  men  who  had  power,  neither  to  govern  nor  to 
ordain,  are  not  very  fitly  depicted  by  the  symbols 
of  men  "  sitting  upon  thrones,  and  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  The  Layman  has  again 
mistaken  and  misrepresented  the  passage,  part  of 
which  he  has  cited.  It  stands  thus,  in  Math.  xix. 
28.  "Jesus  said  unto  them.  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  that  ye  which  have  followed  me  in  the  re- 
generation, when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  in  the  thrdne 
of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones, 


100  Review. 

judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  It  appears 
from  Luke,  ch.  xxii.  that  this  promise  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  twelve  just  before  our  Lord's  pas- 
sion. Whatever  then  is  meant  by  the  "  twelve 
thrones,"  and  the  "  judgment  of  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel,"  it  was  not,  and  could  not  be  possessed 
by  the  apostles,  till  after  their  master's  exaltation : 
till  he  should  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory.  He  was 
to  bestow  it  upon  them  after  he  should  have  "  as- 
cended up  far  above  all  heavens,"  and  not  before. 
This  is  the  text  on  which  the  Layman  relies  for 
proof  of  the  pre-eminence  of  the  twelve  during  our 
Lord's  humiliation^  when  he  did  not  sit  in  the  throne 
of  his  glory,  and  consequently  they  did  not  sit  on 
their  thrones. 

But  "  on  them,"  viz.  the  twelve,  "  was  to  rest  the  fabric  of 
the  church.  The  wait  of  the  city  having  tic elve  foundations, 
and  in  them  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb.'^ 
Rev.  xxi.  14. 

Another  blunder,  as  usual.  A  symbohcal  repre- 
sentation of  a  state  of  the  church  which  has  not 
yet  happened,  is  to  prove  that  the  twelve  were 
superiour  to  the  seventy  in  the  days  of  their  mas- 
ter's flesh,  and  before  they  had  received  any  com- 
mission whatever  to  govern  ! 

There  is  one  argument  more. 

"  Upon  the  happening  of  a  vacancy,  by  the  apostacy  of 
Judas,  Matthias  was  raised  to  his  bishoprick,  being  numbered 
with  the  eleven  apostles,  and  taking  a  part  of  their  ministry. 
Acts  i.  Matthias  had  been  one  of  the  seventy.  For  this  we 
have  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  of  Jerome,  of  Epiphanius. 


Essays  an  Episcopacy.  101 

• 
Mark,  Luke,  Sosthenes,  witli  other  evangelists,  as  also  the 

seven  deacons,  were  of  the  seventy,  if  the  primitive  fathers  of 

the  church  be  at  all  to  be  relied  upon  as  witnesses  of  facts. 

And  these  persons,  even  after  their  promotion,  were  still  inlGe- 

riour  to  the  twelve,  being  under  their  government."     P.  154. 

The  elevation  of  Matthias  to  the  apostleship 
took  place  after  the  eleven  had  received  their 
commission  from  the  risen  Saviour,  and  after  he 
had  ascended  to  heaven :  and  this  is  to  prove  that 
they  were  superiour  to  the  seventy  before  his  pas- 
sion. Truly  the  Layman  has  a  right  to  make 
himself  merry  with  the  logic  of  his  opponents ! 
But  did  the  seventy  retain,  after  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion, the  commission  which  they  had  before  his 
death,  or  did  they  not  ?  If  they  did  not,  the  Lay- 
man's argument  goes  to  the  wall  at  once.  If  they 
did,  then  it  is  strange  that  their  official  character 
is  never  so  much  as  mentioned,  after  the  resurrec- 
tion, in  any  part  of  the  New  Testament.  And  it 
is  no  less  strange  that  the  Layman  should  repre- 
sent any  of  them  as  being  promoted  to  the  office  of 
deacons.  Lower  they  could  not  be,  to  be  in  the 
"  priesthood"  at  ail.  And  if  they  were  next  the 
apostles,  as  they  were  put  in  a  preceding  part  of 
the  discussion,  their  being  made  deacons,  was  a 
promotion  downwards.  They  must  have  been,  as 
belonging  to  the  priesthood,  either  of  the  order  of 
deacons,  or  of  a  superiour  order :  if  deacons,  their 
ordination  to  that  office  by  the  apostles  was  a 
farce ;  if  of  a  superiour  order,  it  degraded  them. 
The  Layman  has  again  his  choice.    But  whether 


102  Review. 

• 
they  were  then  degraded,  or  promoted,  or  neither, 

what  has  this  to  do  with  their  own  office  or  that 

of  the  apostles,  during  our  Lord's  abode  upon 

earth  ? 

So  much  for  the  Layman's  proofs  that  the  twelve 
were  superiour  to  the  seventy.  He  has  not  proved, 
nor  can  he,  with  the  whole  phalanx  of  the  hierar- 
chy to  help  him,  prove,  either  from  their  commis- 
sion, or  from  their  acts,  that  the  twelve  exercised 
or  possessed  an  atom  of  power  over  the  seventy. 

But  our  difficulties  are  not  yet  ended.  We  en- 
counter a  formidable  one  in  the  fact,  that  the 
Christian  church  was  not  organized  at  all  durijig  our 
Lord''s  residence  on  earth.  The  ministry  of  the 
baptist,  his  own  ministry,  and  that  of  the  apostles 
and  the  seventy,  were  all  preparative.  The  church 
could  not  be  organized  under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion, till  the  Jewish  form  ceased  ;  and  that  could 
not  cease  till  the  Messiah  had  "finished  transgres- 
sion, made  an  end  of  sin,  and  made  reconciliation 
for  iniquity,"  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself  Accord- 
ingly, he  gave  his  apostles  their  high  commission 
after  his  resurrection ;  and  they  did  not  so  much 
as  attempt  to  act  upon  it,  till,  as  he  had  promised, 
they  were  "  endued  with  power  from  on  high,"  by 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  Pentecost.  Then 
they  were  able  to  speak  in  the  name  of  a  master 
who  was  "  set  on  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of 
the  majesty  in  the  heavens."  Then,  and  not  till 
then,  did  the  church  put  on  her  New  Testament 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  103 

form.  It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  idle  to  infer  what 
this  form  should  be,  from  her  appearance  in  her 
unformed  state. 

Once  more.  Had  the  Episcopal  writers  even 
made  good  their  assertions  concerning  the  state 
of  the  church  in  the  period  we  have  been  review- 
ing, it  would  avail  them  nothing.  Because  our 
Lord  has  settled  the  platform  of  his  church,  the 
leadingprinciples  of  her  order,  by  positive  statute; 
and  this  precludes,  to  the  whole  extent  of  the 
statute,  all  reasoning  from  analogy.  We  have 
nothing  to  do  but  to  ascertain  what  he  has 
enacted. 

Thus  have  the  proofs  draAvn  in  favour  of  the 
hierarchy,  from  the  Jewish  priesthood,  and  from 
the  state  of  the  church  during  our  Lord's  personal 
ministry,  vanished,  successively,  at  the  touch. — 
Grosser  abuse  of  the  divine  word  than  we  have 
had  occasion  to  expose,  cannot  easily  be  found. 
The  Layman  hardly  approaches  a  text  without 
disfiguring  it.  He  is  young,  very  young,  in  the 
study  of  his  bible.  This  is  some  excuse  ;  and,  in 
his  being  a  layman.,  he  has  an  apology  which  can- 
not be  extended  to  Cyprian,  Vindex,  or  Cornelius. 
If  reading  the  scriptures,  like  correct  interpreters, 
were  to  be  the  test,  we  much  fear  that,  in  the 
issue  of  the  present  trial,  neither  himself,  nor  his 
reverend  associates,  would  be  entitled  to  plead  the 
benefit  of  clergy. 


104  Review. 

Facts  to  justify  the  Episcopal  claim,  have  been 
sought,  without  effect,  in  the  constitution  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood,  and  in  that  peculiar  state  of 
the  church  which  existed  during  our  Lord's  per- 
sonal ministry.  These  refuges  have  failed.  The 
hierarchy  has  been  dislodged  from  all^her  in- 
trenchments  in  succession,  and  left  without  a  rest- 
ing place  for  the  sole  of  her  foot,  in  any  part  of 
the  religious  territory  which  was  occupied  by  the 
church  from  the  days  of  Abraham,  till  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  We  acknowledge,  however,  that  she 
will  suffer  little  detriment  from  her  defeat,  if  she 
can  establish  herself  firmly  upon  New  Testament 
ground.  The  strength  of  her  positions  here,  is 
next  to  be  tried.  If,  as  she  glories,  ih.Q  facts  of  the 
New  Testament  are  on  her  side,  we  own  ourselves 
vanquished,  and  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  hand 
her  our  swords.  But  we  shall  not  take  her  word 
for  it.  Let  the  facts  be  produced.  According  to 
the  writers  whom  w^e  are  reviewing,  they  are  found 
in  the  pre-eminence  of  James  at  Jerusalem ;  of 
Timothy  at  Ephesus ;  of  Titus  in  Crete ;  and  of 
the  seven  angels  in  the  Asiatic  churches.  Epa- 
phroditus,  too,  has  been  occasionally  added  to  the 
number.  The  ability  and  learning  of  Cyprian^  had 
done  him  up  into  a  bishop,  and  had  dispatched 
him  from  Philippi,  in  Episcopal  majesty,  on  a  visit 
to  Paul  at  Rome.  Unfortunately  the  good  man 
lost  his  mitre  by  the  way,  so  that  when  he  arrived, 
the  apostle  could  not  distinguish  him  from  a  sim- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  105 

pie  messenger,  who  came  on  an  errand  from  his 
Phihppian  friends,  and  sent  him  back  again  in 
statu  quo,  without  a  single  mark  of  prelatical  dig- 
nity. So  we  leave  him  to  go  in  quest  of  the 
others.  Before  investigating  the  validity  of  their 
individual  titles,  we  ask  the  reader's  attention  to 
some  general  presumptions  against  the  existence  of 
prelates  in  the  apostolic  church.  Presumptions, 
in  our  view,  so  strong,  as  almost  to  supersede  the 
necessity  of  further  examination. 

The  first  is  this,  that  no  such  .order  is  mentioned, 
nor  even  alluded  to,  either  in  the  salutations  of  PauVs 
epistles  to  the  churches,  or  in  his  directions  for  the 
'performance  of  relative  duties.  Had  prelacy  been  of 
apostolic  origin ;  had  Paul  himself  been  distin- 
guished for  his  zeal  in  establishing  it,  would  there 
not  have  been  something  in  his  epistles  to  the 
churches,  appropriated  to  their  chief  officer.-^ 
He  gives  very  exact  instructions  to  every  other 
class  of  Christians ;  points  out,  minutely,  their 
duties  to  each  other ;  carefully  distinguishes  be- 
tween presbyters  and  deacons ;  draws  their  re- 
spective characters,  and  assigns  their  functions  ; 
salutes  individual  ministers  and  private  Christians, 
both  men  and  women,  by  name ;  but  no  where 
says  one  syllable  to  the  superiour  grade  of  mi- 
nisters !  How  is  this  fact  to  be  explained  ?  That 
Paul,  who  observed  the  most  scrupulous  proprie- 
ty in  all  his  addresses— who  left  no  part  of  reli- 
gious society  any  excuse  for  neglect  of  duty — 

Vol.  III.  H 


106  Review. 

who  overlooked  nothing   which  might   tend  to 
counsel,   conciliate,   or    console — who    carefully 
avoided  every  thing  contemptuous  or  irritating — 
who  was  even  solicitious,  as  we  are  told,  to  as- 
sert the  dignity  of  prelates  above  that  of  presby- 
ters— that  this  very  Paul  should  take  no  manner 
of  notice  of  them  in  his  letters  to  their  dioceses, 
should  enjoin  respect  and  obedience  to  their  sub- 
alterns before  their  faces ;  and  not  so  much  as 
hmt  at  the  obedience  which  these  subalterns  owed 
to  them,  is  past  all  behef !    It  would  bespeak  not 
a  man  of  discretion ;  much  less  a  wise  man ;  less 
still,  a  great  man ;  least  of  all  an  inspired  apostle 
— but  a  downright  idiot.      He  could  not  have 
fallen  upon  a  more  effectual  method  to  disgrace 
them  with  their  people  ;    to  encourage  insubordi- 
nation among  their  presbyters ;  and,  by  wanton- 
ly sporting  with  their  feelings,  to  convert  them 
into  personal  enemies.     How  then,  we  ask  again, 
shall  this  omission  be  accounted  for  ?    It  will  not 
do  to  reply,  that  as  the  names  of  bishop  and  pres- 
byter were  promiscuously  used,  he  joins  them  in 
common  directions,  salutation,  and  honour.  This 
answer  relieves  not  the  difficulty :  for  it  cannot 
extend  to  the  deacons,  whom  he  expressly  distin- 
guishes from  the  presbyters.  Well,  then,  he  singles 
out  the  lowest  order  of  clergy,  pays  them  marked 
attention,  and,  by  this  very  act,  insults  the  prelates 
whom  his  silence  had  sufficiently  mortified.     Fur- 
ther, if  one  set  of  particular  instructions  suits  dif- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  107 

ferent  sets  of  officers,  how  can  iYvQU  functions  be 
different  ?  If  the  prerogative  of  the  prelate  con- 
sist in  the  power  of  ordination  and  government, 
how  can  his  duties  be  comprised  in  a  draught  of 
instructions  for  officers  who  have  no  such  power  ? 
It  would  be  as  rational  to  insist  that  the  very  same 
instructions  would  suit  the  governour  of  a  pro- 
vince and  the  constable  of  a  town.  And  did  not 
every  rule  of  decorum  require,  on  the  part  of  the 
apostle,  a  primary  attention  to  that  order  which 
was  emphatically  to  succeed  him?  that  order, 
without  which,  we  are  taught  the  Christian  church 
can  have  neither  form  nor  government,  nor  minis- 
try, nor  sacraments,  nor  lawful  assemblies;  no, 
nor  even  existence  ?  That  this  order  should  first 
be  instituted  by  the  apostle,  and  then  passed  over 
in  absolute  neglect  when  he  is  writing  to  their 
churches;  or  be  lumped  with  their  inferiours, 
while  the  grades  of  these  inferiours  are  addressed 
in  a  manner  which  it  is  impossible  to  mistake, 
puts  all  credulity  at  defiance.  The  question, 
therefore,  returns,  How  shall  we  solve  this  enigma 
in  the  conduct  of  Paul }  The  simple  solution  is,  he 
takes  no  separate  notice  o{  bishops  as  superiour  to 
presbyters^  because  no  such  bishops  existed.  Other 
solution  there  is  none.  For  it  is  very  certain  that 
cifter  their  introduction  they  figured  gloriously. 
Whoever  was  left  in  the  back  ground,  the  bishop 
came  conspicuously  forward — whoever  was  thrown 
into  the  shade,  the  bishop  was  irradiated — who- 


108  Revieiv. 

ever  was  treated  with  neglect,  due  homage  to  tlie 
bishop  was  never  forgotten.  Not  such  was  the 
fact  in  the  days  of  St.  Paul ;  therefore,  not  such 
was  the  order  which  he  had  instituted. 

2.  Another  presumption,  if,  indeed,  it  deserve 
not  a  higher  name,  against  the  episcopal  con- 
struction of  the  New  Testament  facts,  is,  that  one 
at  least,  of  the  two  powers  said  to  be  vested  ex- 
clusively in  prelates,  is  clearly  attributed  to  pres- 
byters.    We  mean  the  power  oi government. 

There  are  three  terms  employed  in  the  New 
Testament  to  express  the  authority  which  is  to  be 
exercised  in  the  Christian  church,  and  they  are 
dl  appUed  to  presbyters.     These  terms  are, 

1.  iiyso\t.a.\ — To  take  the  lead. 

2.  '^^o;r>)M'i — To  stand  before — to  preside. 

3.  *o»fji,a»vw — To  act  the  part,  to  fulfill  the  duties 
of  a  shepherd. 

Every  power  which  Christ  hath  deputed  to  his 
officers,  is  conveyed  by  one  or  other  of  these 
terms. 

For  the  greater  precision  we  shall  show,  first, 
that  they  do  express  the  power  of  government ; 
and  then,  that  each  of  them  is  applied  to  presby- 
ters. 

1.  HrEOMAi,  To  take  the  lead — signifies  to 
"  rule."  Math.  ii.  6.  Thou,  Bethlehem,  in  the  land 
of  Juda,  art  not  the  least  among  the  princes  (  ^/s^-otfiv) 
of  Juda ;  for  out  of  thee  shall  come  a  governour 
( *)7ou|X£vo£^  thai  shall  rule  mi/  people  Israel.  The  force 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  109 

of  tlic  term,  then,  cannot  be  questioned.    It  is  ap- 
plied to  presbyters. 

Heb.  xii.  7.  Remember  them  which  have  the  rule 
OVER  you.  (i-ws  ^7ouf;.£vuv  ufx-wv  your  Tulers.)  The  apos- 
tle is  speaking  of  their  deceased  pastors ;  for  he 
immediately  adds,  ivho  have  spoken  untoyou  the  word 
of  God;  luhose  faith  follow,  considering  the  end,  the 
issue  or  termination,  of  their  conversation.     Again, 

V.  17.  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you, 
^To»s  TjyoufAsvois  ufAwv^  for  they  watch  for  your  souls  as  they 
that  must  give  account. 

That  these  "  rulers"  were  presbyters,  is  evident 
from  a  single  consideration;  the  apostle  attri- 
butes the  power  of  "  ruling,"  to  those  deceased 
pastors  who  had  preached  the  gospel  to  the  He- 
brew converts ;  and  those  living  ones  who  "  watch- 
ed for  their  souls ;"  which  are  undeniably  the 
functions  of  presbyters ;  therefore  Paul  recog- 
nizes in  presbyters,  all  the  power  of  government 
expressed  by  the  first  term — rulers. 

2.  nPOISTHMI,  or  HPOaTAMAI.  To  stand 
or  place  before — to  preside — to  rule.  1  Tim.  iii.  1. 
j9  Bishop  must  be  one  that  ruleth  well  {xoLkug 
7r§OKrr(X[jLSvov)  his  oivn  house.  The  same  in  v.  5.  12.* 

The  power  expressed  by  this  term  also,  is  ap- 
plied to  Presbyters. 

1  Thess.  V.  12.    We  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know 


*  For  other  references  see  Raphelii  Annot.  Phil,  in  N.  T.  ad 
locum,  &  SchUusncri  Novum  Lfxicon  in  N.  T 


110  Review. 

them  which  labour  among  you,  and  are  over  you 
{x^oKTT-ayLSVovg)  in  the  Lord. 

It  is  a  description  of  ordinary  faithful  pastors; 
not  o{  prelates,  for  there  were  several  at  Thessalo- 
nica  ;  and  diocesan  Episcopacy  admits  of  but  one 
in  a  city.  The  whole  description  taken  together, 
supposes  the  exercise  of  functions,  and  an  intimacy 
of  intercourse,  among  the  people,  which  a  prelate 
cannot  possibly  observe  in  his  diocese  ;  but 
which  is  exactly  characteristic  of  the  Presbyter. 
However,  to  put  the  matter  out  of  all  doubt,  Paul 
charges  Timothy,  1  Eph.  v.  17.  Let  the  elders  that 
RULE  WELL,  (6^  xoXus  'ff^oetTTuteg)  be  accounted  luorthy 
of  double  honour,  &c. 

Presbyters  they  are,  Episcopacy  herself  being 
judge  :  for  this  is  one  of  the  passages  which  she 
quotes  to  prove  their  inferiority  in  the  church  of 
Ephesus,  to  bishop  Timothy.  The  apostle,  then, 
here  formally  attributes  to  presbyters  the  power 
of  "ruling,"  which  we  humbly  conceive  to  be 
much  the  same  with  the  power  of  "  government." 

3.  nOlMAINO.  To  exercise  the  office  of  a 
shepherd;  hence,  to  provide  for  the  safety  and 
comfort  of  any  one — to  direct,  to  controul,  to  go- 
vern. 

This  term  being  more  comprehensive  than 
either  of  the  former  two,  we  crave  the  reader's  in- 
dulgence to  a  minuter  proof  of  the  last  mentioned 
acceptation,  viz.  to  •'  govern." 

As  early  as  the  days  of  Homer,  this  word  and 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  Ill 

its  relatives  were  in  familiar  use,  to  designate  not 
only  authority,  but  the  highest  authority  in  the 
commonwealth.  Thence  that  frequent  Homeric 
phrase  "the  shepherd  of  the  people,"  for  their 
"  kinff."  No  one  who  is  in  the  least  conversant 
with  that  pre-eminent  poet  will  ask  for  examples ; 
but  lest  we  should  be  contradicted  by  such  as  are 
not,  and  yet  wish  to  pass  for  "  Greek  scholars," 
we  subjoin  a  few ;  though  at  the  hazard  of  being 
again  reproved  by  Mr.  Hobart  for  our  "  ostenta- 
tion." 


A^uavTa  t£  IIOIMENA  Xawv. 

II.    A.  263. 

"  Dryas  the  shepherd  of  the  people" — which 
the  schohast  interprets  by  Bao-iXsa  o%Xwi; ;  "  the 
KING  of  multitudes." 

irsfdovTo  TS  nOIMENI  Xawv 

2x*)'7r'Toup(Oi  (3a<fikr]ss.  11.  B.  85. 

"  The  sceptred  kings  yielded  to  the  shepherd  of 
the  people." — ^Where  the  scholiast  again  explains 
"  shepherd"  by  "  king."  Bao-jXff*. 

In  the  same  poet,  "  shepherd"  is  used  inter- 
changeably with  other  terms  descriptive  of  the 
mihtary  chiefs  of  Greece. 

A<av  5ioysvss,T£XaiM>ivie,  KOIPANE  Xawv.  II,  I.  640. 

OWms  HrEM0NE2  Aavawv  xai  KOIPANOI  r^dav.    II.  B.  487. 

Those  who  are  elsewhere  called  "  shepherds," 
are  here  named  "  leaders"  and  "  princes ;"  the 
former  being  interpreted  "  kings"  by  the  scholi- 
ast, as  he  had  already  interpreted  "shepherds." 


112  Review. 

In  the  same  way  does  he  translate  the  latter,  in 
his  annotation  upon  v.  204,  of  the  book  last  cited. 
So  that  by  the  great  master  of  Grecian  language 
and  literature,  the  three  terms,  IIoi/A}]!',  Hyf^wv, 
Ko/^avof,  i.  e.  "  shepherd,"  "leader,"  "prince,"  are 
interchangeably  used  of  the  same  rank,  and  are 
all  explained  by  the  Greek  commentator,  BacjXewf , 
i.  e.  "  king."  Instances  might  easily  be  multiplied, 
but  we  forbear.  We  have  the  rather  appealed  to 
Homer,  because  he  depicts  that  same  state  of 
society  in  which  a  great  portion  of  the  scriptures 
was  written;  and  alludes  to  those  same  objects 
from  which  they  have  borrowed  much  of  their 
imagery,  and  many  of  their  terms. 

Proceed  we  now  to  the  septuagint  version  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  was  completed  be- 
tween two  and  three  centuries  before  Christ. 
2  Kings.,  V.  2.  in  our  version,  2  Sam.  v.  2.  The 
Lord  said  unto  thee,  viz.  David,  thou  shalt  feed 
(TTOiiJLoovsigj  shalt  act  as  a  shepherd  to)  my  people 
Israel,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  captain  (nyov^Asvov)  over 
Israel. 

Precisely  the  same  sort  of  example  is  to  be 
found  in  Ch.  vii.  7,  1  Chron.  ii.  2.  xvii.  6 ;  also  Ps. 
xlviii.  14.  Death  shall  feed  upon  (^roi/AOCPei,  shall 
have  the  ride  over)  them. 

The  New  Testament  is  equally  decisive.  Math, 
ii.  6.  Thou,  Bethlehem,  in  the  land  of  Juda,  art  not 
the  least  among  the  princes  of  Juda  ;  for  out  of  thee 
shall  come  a  governour  {hyovuL^vog)  that  shall  rule 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  113 

(^jToifxavsh  feed,  superintend  as  a  shepherd,)  my 
people  Israel.  The  prophet  speaks  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  "  good  shepherd,"  and 
the  "chief  shepherd;"  and  who  had,  and  has, 
"  the  government  upon  his  shoulder."     Is.  ix.  6. 

This  term,  likewise,  is  apphed  to  Presbyters. 

Acts  XX.  17,  28.  From  Miletus,  Paid  sent  to 
Ephesus,  and  called  the  presbyters  of  the  church  and 
said  unto  them — Take  heed  unto  yourselves.,  and  to  all 
the  flock  over  ivhich  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
BISHOPS  to  FEED  Q?:oi[AO'.ivsiv,  like  good  shepherds,  to 
provide  for,  watch  over,  and  govern,)  the  church  of 
God,  &c. 

1  Pet.  V.  2, 3.  The  presbyters  who  are  among 
you,  I  exhort,  ivho  am  also  a  presbyter.  Feed 
(^roz/Aavarfi)  the  flock  of  God  ivhich  is  among  you, 
taking  the  oversight  {eTntrxoTFOvvrss,  discharging 
the  duty  of  bishops)  thereof,  not  by  constraint,  but 
willingly  ;  not  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready  mind: 
JVeither  as  being  lords  over  God''s  heritage,  but  being 
ensamples  to  the  flock. 

It  is  obvious,  upon  the  very  face  of  the  texts, 
that  these  presbyters  of  Ephesus,  and  of  the  dis- 
persion, are  considered  as  vested  with  the  pasto- 
ral care  in  all  its  extent ;  and  they  are  command- 
ed to  be  faithful  to  the  trust  reposed  in  them,  by 
providing  for  the  protection,  nurture,  and  comfort 
of  the  flock  of  God.  This  "  feeding"  the  flock, 
this  discharge  of  the  pastoral  duty,  is  directly  op- 
posed by  Peter,  to  being  "  lords  over  God's  heri- 

Vol.  111.  15 


114  Review. 

tage,"  i.  e.  to  rigorous  and  oppressive  govern- 
ment ;  or,  as  v^e  commonly  say,  to  "  lording  it" 
over  them.  The  contrast  could  have  had  no  place, 
had  not  these  presbyters  been  church  governours ; 
for  it  is  idle  to  warn  men  against  abusing  a  power 
which  they  do  not  possess.  By  instructing  them 
how  they  were  to  govern  the  church,  the  Apostle 
has  decided  that  the  power  of  government  was 
committed  to  them.  No  higher  authority  than 
he  has  recognized  in  them,  can  belong  to  the  or- 
der of  prelates.  For  the  very  same  term  by  which 
he  marks  the  power  of  the  presbyters,  is  employ- 
ed in  scripture,  to  mark  the  authority  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  himself* 

.  The  reader  cannot  for  a  moment,  suppose  that 
we  put  any  power  left  in  the  church,  on  a  level 
with  that  of  her  divine  master.  Far  from  us  be 
the  thought  of  such  blasphemy.  But  we  contend 
for  these  two  things. 

1st.  That  the  term  which  both  Paul  and  Peter 
apply  to  the  office  of  presbyters,  undoubtedly  ex- 
presses the  power  of  government ;  seeing  it  is  the 
term  which  expresses  the  office  of  Christ,  as  the 
governour  of  his  people  Israel. 

2d.  That  as  this  term,  applied  to  the  office  of 
Christ,  expresses  the  highest  power  of  government 
in  him  as  the  chief  shepherd ;  so,  when  applied  to 
the  office  of  the  under  shepherds,  it  expresses  the 
highest  power  of  government  which  he  has  dele- 

*  Math.  ii.  6 — »}you,asvoj  otfrig  IIOIMANEI  tov  Xaov  (aou,  &c- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  115 

gated  to  be  exercised  in  his  name  for  the  welfare 
of  his  church.  But  this  power  is  vested,  Paul  and 
Peter  being  judges,  m  presbyters  ;  therefore,  pres- 
byters, by  the  appointment  of  Jesus  Christ,  are 
invested  with  the  highest  power  of  government 
known  in  his  church. 

We  go  further  :  The  authority  conveyed  by  the 
charge  to  "/cet/  the  flock  of  God,"  comprehends 
the  ordering  of  all  things  necessary  to  her  well  be- 
ing ;  and,  therefore,  the  power  of  ordination  like- 
wise. An  essential  part  of  the  Redeemer's  jsa^^o- 
ral  office,  was,  and  is,  to  provide  under-pastors  for 
his  sheep.  This,  at  first,  he  did  in  person,  by  im- 
mediate vocation.  But  having  "  ascended  up  far 
above  all  heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all  things," 
he  performs  the  same  office  through  the  medium 
of  the  pastors  whom  he  has  left  in  the  church. 
The  question  is  to  ivhat  pastors  has  he  committed 
the  trust  of  ordaining  other  pastors,  and  thus  pre- 
serving the  pastoral  succession  ?  We  answer,  to 
presbyters :  for  he  has  affixed  to  their  office,  that 
very  term  which  designates  his  own  right  and  care 
to  furnish  his  church  with  pastors,  or  lawful  minis- 
ters. Let  our  Episcopal  brethren  show  as  much 
for  their  prelates,  if  they  can. 

To  sum  up  what  has  been  said  on  this  article : 
No  expression  more  clear  and  decisive  than  those 
we  have  considered,  are  used  in  the  scripture  to 
denote  either  the  communication,  or  the  posses- 
sion, or  the  exercise,  of  the  ordinary  powers  given 


116  Review. 

by  Christ  for  the  well  ordering  of  his  church. 
And  we  have  shown,  that  the  New  Testament 
has,  in  the  most  direct  and  ample  manner,  con- 
fided them  all  to  presbyters. 

Unless,  therefore,  we  adopt  the  insane  paradox 
of  Hammond,  viz.  that  the  presbyters  of  the  New 
Testament  were  all  diocesan  bishops,  the  passages 
quoted  must  bear  one  of  two  senses.  Either  they 
point  out,  under  the  denomination  of  presbyters, 
those  officers  who  are  strictly  so  called,  in  con 
tradistinction  from  prelates  and  deacons ;  or  they 
use  the  name  with  sufficient  latitude  to  include 
the  prelates  too.  If  the  former,  our  position  is 
established.  If  the  latter,  then  prelates  and  pres- 
byters diYQ  joined  together  in  the  power  of  govern- 
ment, which  the  hierarchy  maintains  is  confined 
to  prelates  alone.  In  either  way,  the  argument  is 
conclusive  against  her. 

3d.  At  a  very  early  period  of  the  Christian 
church,  presbyters  did  actually  exercise  the  power 
of  government :  exercised  it  in  conjunction  with 
the  apostles  themselves;  and  that  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  parity. 

The  important  question  concerning  the  obliga- 
tion upon  Christians  to  be  circumcised  and  keep 
the  law  of  Moses,  in  order  to  salvation,  was  refer- 
red by  the  church  at  Antioch,  to  the  apostles  and 
elders  at  Jerusalem.  The  historian  does  not  mean 
apostles  and  ciders  who  had  a  fixed  and  perma- 
nent charge  at  Jerusalem,  which  was  essentially 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  117 

incompatible  with  their  apostoHc  vocation.  But 
as  that  city  had  been  the  cradle  of  the  Christian 
church,  and  was  the  centre  of  religious  communi- 
cation from  all  parts  of  the  world,  the  apostles  re- 
turned thither  from  their  excursions  in  preaching 
the  gospel,  accompanied  with  Elders  or  Presby- 
ters from  the  churches  which  they  had  planted, 
and  met  together  in  ecclesiastical  council  to  con- 
suit  about  their  common  interest.  Herein  they 
have  set  us  the  example,  and  left  us  the  warrant, 
of  a  delegated  body,  as  the  ultimate  resort  in  all 
ecclesiastical  affairs :  for,  such  a  body,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  was  the  assemblage  of  the 
apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem.  Of  this  most 
venerable  primitive  Synod,  we  treat  no  further  at 
present  than  to  ascertain  what  share  the  presby- 
ters had  in  its  proceedings.  The  following  things 
appear  indisputable. 

1st.  The  apostles  and  presbyters  met  in  com- 
mon; that  is,  they  formed  butowe  assembly.  Of 
a  "  house  of  bishops,"  and  a  "  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  delegates,"  they  had  no  idea.  This  im^- 
provement  in  church-government  was  reserved 
for  discovery  by  those  who  have  been  trained  in 
the  school  of  the  "judicious"*  Hooker. 

*  This  appellation  was  bestOAved  upon  Hooker  by  James  VI. 
who  was  delighted,  beyond  measure,  with  his  famous  work  on  ec- 
clesiastical polity.  And  delighted  with  it  for  the  same  reason 
which,  no  doubt,  ravished  the  heart  of  Cardinal  Allen,  and  Pope 


118  Review. 

2d.  The  right  of  the  presbyters  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment with  the  apostles  upon  all  ecclesiastical  con- 
cerns, which  were  not  to  be  decided  by  special 
revelation,  was  well  understood  in  the  churches. 

The  proof  of  this  proposition  lies  in  the  very 
terms  of  the  reference  from  Antioch.  For  it  is 
inconceivable,  how  the  church  there  should  think 
of  submitting  a  question,  so  weighty  in  itself,  and 
so  extensive  in  its  consequences,  to  the  "  elders," 
conjointly  with  the  "  apostles,"  if  they  had  not 
been  taught  that  presbyters  were  the  ordinary 
church  governours,  and  were  to  continue  such  af- 
ter the  decease  of  the  others.  This  explains  why 
they  went  up  with  the  apostles  to  Jerusalem.  It 
was  not  only  to  give  them  opportunities  of  infor- 
mation ;  but  also,  if  not  chiefly,  to  learn  the  pro- 
per mode  of  dispatching  the  pubHc  business.  Be- 
fore this  council  or  synod,  composed  of  apostles 
and  elders,  was  the  interesting  reference  from 
Antioch  laid ;  by  them  was  it  discussed,  and  by 
them  decided. 

3d.  The  apostles,  on  this  occasion,  acted  simply 
as  members  of  the  synod ;  they  did  nothing  in  vir- 

Clement  the  VIII.*  viz.  that  the  principle  of  HooJcer''s  book,  and 
the  scope  of  his  argument,  are  to  prove  the  right  of  the  church  to 
model  her  government  as  she  shall  judge  for  edification.  We  shall 
touch  this  subject  again.  Does  not  the  reader  suppose  that  this 
must  be  a  truly  Protestant  work,  which  excited  the  admiration  and 
rapture  of  the  pope  and  his  cardinals ! 

*  Hooker's  life,  p.  78,  79.     Works,  vol.  1.  8vo. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  119 

tue  of  their  extraordinary,  which  was  their  apos- 
tohcal,  character,  nor  introduced  into  the  dehbe- 
rations  of  the  assembly,  any  influence  but  that  of 
facts  ;  of  the  ivritten  scripture ;  and  of  reasoning 
founded  on  the  comparison  of  both.  All  this  is 
evident  from  the  narrative  in  the  fifteenth  chapter 
of  the  Acts ;  and  resulted  from  the  nature  of  the 
case.  Had  the  question  been  to  be  determined 
by  special  revelation  or  apostolic  authority,  one  in- 
spired man,  or  one  apostle,  would  have  answered 
as  well  as  a  dozen.  The  dispute  might  have  been 
settled  on  the  spot,  and  by  Paul  himself  Had 
-there  arisen  any  doubt  of  his  power,  or  distrust  of 
his  integrity,  a  hundred  miracles,  if  necessary, 
would  instantly  have  removed  the  obstacle.  In 
every  view,  the  embassy  to  Jerusalem  would  have 
been  an  useless  parade. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  apostles  acted  in  a  double 
capacity.  They  had  that  authority  which  was  de- 
signed to  be  ordinary  and  perpetual,  such  as 
preaching  the  word,  administering  the  sacraments, 
and  governing  the  church.  But  superadded  to 
this,  they  had  also  the  authority  of  special  mes- 
sengers for  extraordinary  and  temporary  pur- 
poses. If  a  new  church  was  to  be  founded  among 
the  nations — if  any  part  of  the  rule  of  faith  was  to 
be  revealed — if  a  particular  emergency  required 
a  particular  interposition ;  in  these  and  similar 
cases,  their  extraordinary  character  found  its  pro- 
per objects :  they    "  spake  as  they  were  moved 


120  Revieiv. 

by  the  Holy  Ghost :"  their  judgnient  was  infalli- 
ble, and  their  authority  paramount.  But  for  the 
ordmary  government  of  the  church,  or  any  part  of 
it,  they  do  not  appear  to  have  enjoyed  these  ex- 
traordinary communications  of  the  divine  spirit ; 
nor  to  have  exerted  their  extraordinary  powers  ; 
nor  to  have  claimed  a  particle  of  authority  above 
the  presbyters.  Without  such  a  distinction  as 
we  have  now  stated,  their  history  is  a  tissue  of 
inconsistencies,  and  their  conduct  in  the  synod  of 
Jerusalem  must  be  given  up  as  a  riddle  that  baffles 
solution. 

Seeing,  therefore,  that  in  the  apostolic  epistles 
and  salutations  to  the  churches,  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  prelates,  although  there  is  frequent  men- 
tion of  presbyters  and  deacons — that  presbyters 
are  formally  addressed  as  possessing  the  power  of 
government — and  that  they  actually  did  exercise 
it  in  matters  of  the  highest  moment,  the  advocate 
for  diocesan  episcopacy  must  adduce  scriptural 
facts  to  support  him  under  the  depressing  weight 
of  all  these  considerations.  As  he  maintains  that 
prelates  are  at  least  of  apostolic  origin ;  and  that 
they  alone  succeeded  the  apostles  in  the  powers  of 
ordination  and  government,  his  facts  must  not 
only  be  plausible  when  detached  from  their  place 
and  bearings  in  the  Christian  history,  and  when 
decorated  with  appendages  of  his  own  imagina- 
tion ;  but  they  must  accord  with  the  language  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  with  its  narrative ;  they 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  121 

must  be  so  decisive  as  to  annihilate  the  foregoing 
difficulties  ;  and  must  not  admit  of  a  fair  and  ra- 
tional explanation  upon  Presbyterian  principles. 
With  such  facts,  he  tells  us,  he  is  ready  to  con- 
front us.  Our  curiosity  is  awake  :  let  us  look  at 
them  without  further  delay. 

He  refers  us  for  one  fact,  to  that  same  synod  of 
Jerusalem  which  we  have  just  left.  We  must  go 
back  again. 

"  If  from  Crete,"  says  Cyprian,  "  we  pass  to  Jerusalem,  we 
shall  there  discover  equally  striking  evidence*  that  St.  James, 
the  brother  of  our  Lord,  possessed  in  that  place  the  pre-emi- 
nence of  a  bishop  in  tlie  church.  In  the  first  council  that  was 
held  there,  in  order  to  determine  the  controversy  which  had 
aiisen  in  regard  to  the  circumcision  of  Gentile  converts,  we 
find  him  pronouncing  an  authoritative  sentence.  His  sentence, 
we  remark  also,  determined  the  controversy.  "  Wherefore  my 
sentence  is,  says  he,  that  we  trouble  not  those  who  from  among 
the  Gentiles  are  turned  unto  God."  In  Acts  xxi.  17  and  18, 
we  are  told,  "  that  when  St.  Paul  and  his  company  were  come 
to  Jerusalem,  the  brethren  received  him  gladly;  and  that  the 
next  day  following,  Paul  went  in  with  them  unto  James,  and 
all  the  Elders  or  Presbyters  were  present."  Acts  xii.  17,  it  is 
said,  that  "  Peter,  after  he  had  declared  to  the  Christians  to 
whom  he  went,  his  miraculous  deliverance,  bade  them  go  and 

*  What  this  "  striking  evidence"  is,  remains  to  be  seen  here- 
after. We' shall  reduce  the  out-works  of  the  hierarchy  before  we 
close  in  upon  her  citadel.  This  is  the  Episcopal  character  of  Ti- 
mothy and  Titus,  as  her  chieftains  confess,  as  their  anxiety  to  de- 
fend it  sufficiently  indicates,  even  without  their  confession.  In 
the  mean  time,  we  believe  Cyprian  to  be  pretty  correct  in  making 
the  evidence  for  the  episcopate  of  James  at  Jerusalem,  to  be 
''equally  striking"  with  that  of  Titus's  at  Crete.  For  we  hope 
to  prove  that  in  both  cases  it  amounts  to  just  nothing  at  all  ! 
Vol.  III.  1  6 


122  Review. 

show  these  things  to  James  and  to  the  brethren."  In  Gala- 
tians  ii.  12,  St.  Paul  says,  "  that  certain  came  from  James," 
that  is,  from  the  church  of  Jerusalem  to  the  church  of  Antioch. 
Surely  these  passages  strongly  indicate  that  James  held  the 
highest  dignity  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem.  The  brethren 
carry  Paul  and  his  company  to  him  as  to  a  supreme  officer. 
He  has  presbyters  and  deacons  in  subordination  to  him.  When 
messengers  are  sent  from  Jerusalem  to  other  churches,  it  is 
not  done  in  the  name  of  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  or  of 
the  church  of  this  place  ;  it  is  done  in  the  name  of  James.  Do 
not  these  considerations  prove  James  was  the  supreme  ruler 
of  that  church  T' 

The  first  argument  of  Cyprian  for  the  episcopal 
pre-eminence  of  James,  is,  that  he  pronounced  in 
the  synod  of  Jerusalem,  "  an  authoritative  sentence  ;" 
and  that  "  his  sentence  determined  the  controver- 
sy." The  proof  is,  that  expression  in  his  speech 
to  the  council,  "Wherefore,  my  sentence  is,  that 
we  trouble  not  those  who  from  among  the  Gen- 
tiles are  turned  unto  God."     Jlcts  xv.  19. 

We  are  under  the  necessity  of  objecting,  for  the 
third  time,  to  these  writers,  that  they  put  into  the 
mouth  of  the  person  whom  they  quote,  declara- 
tions which  he  never  uttered.  They  will  make 
James  dehver  an  authoritative  sentence  as  the 
bishop  of  Jerusalem.  They,  perhaps,  could  not 
help  themselves,  as  they  have  only  followed  their 
file  leaders.  Potter  had  said  the  same  thing ;  and 
they  took  it  as  they  found  it.  But  the  editor  of 
Lycophron,  and  author  of  the  "  Antiquities  of 
Greece,"  was  "  a  scholar,  and  a  ripe  and  good 
one."     He  knew  that  he  was  standing  on  slippery 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  123 

ground ;  and  so  to  save  his  own  reputation,  he 
sHly  fathers  his  construction  of  James's  words  up- 
old  Hesychiiis* 

But  in  opposition  to  Cyprian,  and  the  Layman, 
and  archbishop  Potter,  and  Hesychius  too,  we 
shall  show, 

1.  That  there  is  nothing  in  the  language  of 
James,  from  which  it  can  be  inferred  that  he,  as 
the  superiour  officer,  pronounced  an  authoritative 
sentence,  and, 

2.  That  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  pronounce 
such  a  sentence. 

The  first  point  is  to  be  settled  by  a  critical  ex- 
amination of  his  phraseology.  His  words  are, 
Jio  eyo)  KPIJVS2,  which  our  translators  have  ren- 
dered "  Wherefore  my  sentence  «.?." 

The  primitive  meaning  of  the  word  is  to  discri- 
minate, to  separate,  to  select,  to  arrange.  Thus 
Homer, 

KPINEI,  sifsjyoixsvwv  otsjawv  KAPIION  ts  xai  AXNAi;. 

II.  E.  501. 

^'■Separates,  by  the  winds,  the  chaff  from  the 
wheat.^'' 

*  Discourse  on  Church  Government,  p.  91.  In  a  note,  the  learn- 
ed prelate  cites  Hesychius  as  thus  distinguishing — "Peter  addresses 
the  council ;  but  James  enacts  the  law."  rierpoj  ini^nyoQcif  aXX'  laKoiSoj 
lonoOsTu.  Potter's  precaution  passed  unobserved.  The  reason 
probably  is,  that  it  was  locked  up  in  the  quotation  from  Hesychius, 
"  Grcecum  est;  et  non  potest  legi!'^  said  the  Trojans  of  Oxford, 
whenever  a  line  of  Greek  came  in  their  way. 


124  R 


eview. 


KPINA2  r'ava  5r\\kw  ap^wg. 

Od.  A.  666. 

^''Selecting  the  most  valiant  throughout  the 
people." 

KPIN'  av5|aS  xara  (puXa.  U.  B.  362. 

"  Arrame  the  men  according  to  their  nations." 
From  this  primitive  notion,  the  word,  by  a  very 
natural  transition,  came  to  signify  the  formation 
of  an  opinion,  or  judgment,  and  the  expression  of 
it  when  formed,  because  no  opinion  or  judgment 
can  exist  without  a  previous  process  by  which  the 
mind  discriminates  between  its  own  perceptions. 
And  thus  the  word  is  familiarly  used  by  writers 
both  profane  and  sacred. 

fjiiCs.  5s  -jrXsov  ■>]  5i3cr]  KPI.NANTE2. 

"  Forming  their  opinion  rather  from  hatred  than 
justice,"  says  Thucydides  of  the  Plataeans,  with 
respect  to  their  ^Wo-wew^  of  the  Thebans.* 

— T75V  5iaxocr|X7jrfjv  xai  Ta|ivKPINEIN  ou  r-ox^Z — ^'vai  xarfxsuaff/xaTa. 

"  To  think  that  the  beautiful  order  of  the  uni- 
verse is  not  the  production  of  fortune."! 

TW  TOUTO  KPINEI2. 

"  Why  dost  thou  think  so  ?    upon  what  ground 
art  thou  of  this  opinion  T'^X 
In  the  speech  of  Hermocrates  to  the  Syracusans, 

*  Thucyd.  III.  67.  p.  209.  cd  Dukeri. 

t  Diod.  Sic.  Lib.  xii.  84.    Tom.  I.  p.  491.  ed  WesseL 

i  Aristoph.  Pint  v.  48.  p.  9.  ed  Kusteri. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  125 

as  recorded  by  Thucydides,  there  is  a  perfect  pa- 
rallel to  the  expression  of  James. 

u  We  shall  consult,"  says  he,  "  if  we  be  in  our 
right  minds,  not  only -our  own  immediate  inte- 
rests; but  whether  we  shall  be  ablestill  to  preserve 
all  Sicily,  against  which,  in  my  judgment,  the  Athe- 
nians are  plotting."* 

The  same  use  of  the  word  is  so  common  m  the 
New  Testament,  that  examples  are  almost  super- 
fluous. We  shall,  however,  subjoin  a  few,  because 
they  will  bring  our  criticism  more  directly  withm 
the  reach  of  the  unlearned  reader. 

Luke  vii.  43.  Simon  said— I  suppose  that  he  to 
whom  he  forgave  most.  And  he  said  unto  him. 
Thou  hast  rightly  judged  {oqkog  EKPINAS.)  Si- 
mon's judgment  was  surely  not  an  official  one.  It 
was  simply  his  opinion,  or  conclusion,  from  the  case 
proposed  to  him. 

John  vii.  24.  Judge  not  (Mi]  KPINETE)  ac- 
cording to  the  appearance,  but  judge  righteous  judg- 
ment "(rPJ^IiV  ^^JA^-^  ^^0  No  "authoritative 
sentence"  is  contemplated  here. 

Jets  xii.  46.  Seeing— ije  judge  yourselves  {KPI- 
NETE) unworthy,  S{c. 

2  Cor.  V.  14, 15.  The  love  of  Christ  constraineth 
us,  because  ice  thus  judge  (KPINANTA2  tovxo,) 
&c.    "  Concerning  the  love  of  Christ,"  saith  Paul, 

Tlivcyd.  iv.  60.  p.  272.  ed  Dukeri. 


1 26  Review. 

"  this  is  our  sentiment,  our  mode  of  reasoning,  that  if 
one  died  for  all,"  &c. 

In  every  one  of  the  preceding  quotations,  the 
very  same  word  is  used  v\^hich  occurs  in  the  speech 
of  James,  and,  in  the  very  same  sense.  It  is  the 
plainest  Greek  imaginable  to  express  the  result  of 
one^s  refections.  This  is  all  that  the  words  of 
James  imply.  He  spoke  among  the  last ;  he  avail- 
ed himself  of  the  discussion  which  had  already 
taken  place  :  And  when  his  opinion  was  matured, 
he  submitted  it  to  the  council  in  the  form  of  a 
temperate  and  conciliatory  proposition.  We  ask 
any  man  of  plain  sense,  to  look  over  the  chapter, 
and  say  whether  this  is  not  a  natural  and  satisfac- 
tory account  of  the  whole  affair.  Little  did  the 
guileless  disciple  suspect  that  his  familiar  and  in- 
nocent expression,  would  be  converted,  in  these 
latter  days,  into  a  certificate  of  his  being  a  dioce- 
san bishop  !  And  had  not  the  "  proofs"  of  the 
hierarchy  been,  like  lords'  wits,  rather  "  thinly 
sown,"  she  would  never  have  attempted  to  cull  one 
from  a  form  of  speech  which  might  have  been 
adopted  by  the  obscurest  member  of  the  council, 
with  as  much  propriety  as  by  James  himself 

We  have  neither  interest  nor  disposition  to  con- 
ceal what  is  well  known  to  even  smatterers  in 
Greek,  that  the  term  which  we  have  shown  to  be 
famiharly  used  to  signify  the  expression  of  opinion 
generally,  is  also  used,  and  with  equal  familiarity, 
in  a  more  restricted  sense,  o(  di  judicial  opinion;  or. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  127 

if  you  prefer  it,  an  "  authoritative  sentence."  But 
then  it  sAsv a.ys  presupjjoses  the  judicial  or  authorita- 
tive character  of  the  person  to  whom  it  is  apphed. 
Thus  the  senses  of  the  word  rank. 

1.  To  discriminate— to  select— to  arrange.— 

Thence, 

2.  To  form  a  judgment — to  express  an  opinion, 
— and  thence, 

3.  To  pronounce  an  official  judgment ;  or  "  an 
authoritative  sentence." 

But  who  does  not  see  that  you  must  first  know 
under  what  circumstances  a  person  is  represented 
as  speaking  or  acting,  before  you  can  determine 
whether  the  writer  intends,  by  the  word  we  are 
considering,  a  mere  selection  of  one  thing  from  a 
number  of  others  ?  or  an  opinion  as  expressed  in 
conversation  or  debate  }  or  a  solemn  judicial  sen- 
tence f  Had  the  prelatic  dignity  of  James  been 
first  established;  and  had  the  synod  at  Jerusalem 
been  a  convocation  of  his  clergy,  4.here  would  have 
been  a  propriety  in  attributing  to  him  an  "  autho- 
ritative" decision,  and  interpreting  his  words  ac- 
cordingly. But  to  argue  from  his  "  my  sentence 
is,"  that  he  was  a  prelate,  is  completely  begging 
the  question.  The  argument  assumes  that  he  was 
the  bishop  of  Jerusalem ;  for  this  is  indispensable 
to  that  "  authority"  which  Cyprian  ascribes  to  his 
words ;  and  it  is  exactly  taking  for  granted,  the 
thing  to  be  proved. 

Another  unfortunate  circumstance  for  the  Epis- 


126  Review. 

copal  construction  of  James's  speech  is,  that  it 
contradicts  the  sacred  historian.  In  the  very  next 
chapter  he  tells  us,  that  Paul  and  Silas  delivered 
to  the  cities  through  which  they  passed,  "  the  de- 
crees for  to  keep,  that  were  ordained  {KEKPI- 
MEJIVA)  of  the  apostles  and  elders^  Ch.  xvi.  4, 
Cyprian  says  that  James  pronounced  the  "  autho- 
ritative sentence."  The  inspired  historian  says, 
that  it  was  pronounced  by  the  aposdes  and  elders. 
Both  cannot  be  true  ;  and  we  are  inclined  to  think 
that  the  rector  of  the  episcopal  church  in  Albany, 
cannot  stand  in  the  judgment,  even  with  Potter 
and  Hesychius  to  back  him.  The  affront  put 
upon  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  the  more  conspicu- 
ous, as  the  term  which,  in  the  mouth  of  James,  is 
tortured  into  an  "  authoritative  sentence,"  here  oc- 
curs in  that  sense  most  unequivocally  :  because 
the  reference  from  Antioch  was  brought  before  the 
tribunal  of  the  apostles  and  elders.  They  were  re- 
cognized as  Judges  having  cognizance  of  the  question; 
and  theirs  was,  of  course,  an  authoritative  sen- 
tence. James  was,  indeed,  one  of  the  judges  ; 
he  acted  in  his  judicial  character,  but  that  cha- 
racter was  common  to  him  with  every  other 
member  of  the  council ;  and  like  theirs,  his  only 
influence  was  that  of  his  wisdom  and  his  vote. 
The  scripture,  then,  being  judge,  it  is  incontesti- 
ble,  that  he  did  NOT  pronounce  an  "  authorita- 
tive sentence." 

Our  second  position  is,  that  it  was  impossible  for 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  129 

James  to  exercise  such  a  power  as  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy  attribute  to  him.     Our  proofs  are 

these  : 

1.  The  cause  was  not  referred  to  him  ;    and 

accordingly  it  was  not  tried  in  the  court  of  "  St. 
James  ;"  but  in  the  court  of  the  "  apostles  and 
elders,"  as  the  representatives  of  the  Christian 
church. 

2.  It  could  not  be  referred  to  him  ;  nor  could 
he,  as  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  have  any  cognizance 
of  it ;  Antioch  being  entirely  without  his  juris- 
diction. 

3.  The  decision  of  the  council  was  received 
and  obeyed  with  alacrity  through  the  churches  of 
Asia.  But  had  it  been  pronounced  by  an  autho- 
rity so  limited  and  local  as  that  of  the  bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  the  effect  must  have  been  very  diffe- 
rent. Unless  we  should  suppose,  that  all  the  Asi- 
atic cities  through  which  Paul  and  Silas  passed, 
were  subject  to  the  see  of  Jerusalem ;  and,  then, 
we  shall  not  only  spoil  the  Episcopal  argument 
from  the  seven  angels  of  Asia  ;  but  shall  overturn 
the  whole  system  of  the  hierarchy,  as  it  is  pre- 
tended to  have  been  estabhshed  by  apostohc  or- 
dination ;  because  we  shall  admit,  that,  instead  of 
fixing  bishops  at  proper  distances  for  governing 
the  church  within  convenient  dioceses,  the  apos- 
tles put  the  immense  regions  of  Asia  under  a 
spiritual  head  in  the  land  of  Judea.     Indeed,  we 

have  always  thought  it  hard,  upon  the  Episcopal 
Vol.  III.  17 


1 30  Review. 

plan,  that,  considering  the  importance  and  the 
wealth  of  Antioch,  not  a  bishop  could  be  mus- 
tered for  that  distinguished  city  ;  but  she  must 
go  for  direction  all  the  way  to  the  prelate  of  Je- 
rusalem ! 

4.  The  assembly  in  which  James  delivered  his 
speech  was  not  composed  of  clergy  belonging  to 
his  diocese  ;  and,  therefore,  he  could  not,  even 
upon  episcopal  principles,  pronounce  an  "  autho- 
ritative  sentence."     The   reason  is  obvious  :  he 
could  not  exercise  authority  over  those  who  were 
not  under  his  controul.     There  were  present  at 
the  council,  not  only  "  presbyters,"  but "  apostles." 
Peter  was  there,  Paul  was  there,  and  how  many 
others,  we  do  not  know.     Had  James  then   pro- 
nounced an  "  authoritative  sentence,"  he  had  been 
above  not  only  all  the  presbyters  of  his  own  dio- 
cese, but  above  all  the  deputies  from  Antioch  ; 
above  all  the  members  of  the  council  from  what- 
ever part  of  the  world  ;  above  the  apostles  them- 
selves !    Look,  then,  at  this/«c^  of  the  hierarchy. 
It  turns  the  very  apostles  into  mere  make-weights 
of  bishop  James !  It  sets  up  an  authority  much  like 
that  of  a  visible  head  of  the  church  catholic,  than 
the  papists  have  ever  been  able  to  produce  for 
their  "  St.  Peter  !"     If  this  is  not  a  "  bold  stroke  " 
for  a  bishop,  pray,  gentlemen,  what  is  ?    And  if 
any  of  our  readers  can  digest  such  a  dish  of  ab- 
surdity, we  wish  him  mucli  comfort  of  his  meal  ! 
We  shall  not  trespass  long  upon  the  patience  of 


Essays  071  Episcopacy.  131 

either  our  friends  or  our  foes,  in  disposing  of  the 
"  remains"  of  Cyprian's  proofs.  "  When  St.  Paul 
and  his  company  were  come  to  Jerusalem,  the 
brethren  received  him  gladly,  and  the  next  day 
following,  Paul  went  in  with  them  unto  James, 
and  all  the  elders  or  presbyters  were  present." 
It  was  rather  rustic  in  Paul  not  to  pay  his  court 
to  the  bishop  j^r5/.  We  have  learnt,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  some  mortification,  that  in  New- York 
any  communication  with  the  clergy,  on  eccle- 
siastical matters,  except  through  the  medium  of 
the  bishop,  is  an  invasion  of  episcopal  order. 
But  Paul  must  be  pardoned  for  committing  an 
oversight,  especially  as  Cyprian,  to  be  even  with 
him,  has  done  so  too.  He  has  stopped  at  that 
part  of  the  narrative,  which,  in  his  eyes,  holds 
James  forth  in  something  of  bishop-like  majesty, 
and  forgot  to  tell  the  rest  of  the  story.  The  reader, 
no  doubt,  would  expect  to  hear  of  a  very  pointed 
conference  between  James  and  the  apostle,  all 
the  presbyters  listening  with  due  humihty  to  their 
superiours  ;  but  if  he  turn  to  the  history,  (Acts 
xxi.)  he  will  find  these  same  presbyters  most  un- 
civilly advising  the  apostle  ;  and  what  is  still 
worse,  telling  him  that  they  had  decided  the  re- 
ference from  Antioch.  Cyprian  asserts  that  James 
made  the  decision.  They,  on  the  contrary,  have 
the  assurance  to  tell  the  apostle  Paul,  in  the  pre- 


1 32  Review. 

sence  of  James  himself,  that  the  presbyters  had 
decided  it.  And  all  this  while  not  a  word  of  bishop 
James  !  In  the  following  ages  the  presbyters 
were  taught  better  manners. 

But  then,  it  seems,  that  after  Peter's  "  miracu- 
lous deliverance,  he  bade  the  Christians  go  and 
show  these  things  to  James,  and  to  the  breth- 
ren"— Also,  that  "  certain  came  from  James, 
that  is,  from  the  church  of  Jerusalem  to  the 
church  of  Antioch."  Therefore,  James  was 
bishop  of  Jerusalem  !  Very  sagely  and  conclu- 
sively reasoned  !  As  if  such  things  did  not  hap- 
pen every  day  in  places  where  there  are  ministers 
of  the  gospel  distinguished  by  their  talent  or 
standing.  The  writer  of  this  review  stepped  the 
other  evening  into  the  house  of  that  venerable 
Christian  veteran,  the  Reverend  Dr.  Rodgers,  and 
found  there  "  certain  brethren"  who  had  just 
come  from  one  of  their  judicatories.  It  is  quite 
common  for  people  to  talk  of  Dr.  Rodgers'  send- 
ing ministers  to  preach  ;  and  even  to  designate 
his  denomination  as  Dr.  Rodgers'  church  !  There- 
fore Dr.  Rodgers  is  bishop  of  New-York  ;  and 
primate  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  North- 
America  !  ! 

"  Thus  endeth  the  first  lesson,"  which  is  con- 
cerning Cyprian's  "  striking  evidence"  that  James 
was  bishop  of  Jerusalem. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy. 


133 


Having  disposed  of  the    see  of    Jerusalem, 
wiiich  had  been  gratuitously  conferred  on  James, 
we  proceed  to  the  argument  in  favour  of  Diocesan 
Episcopacy,  from  the  epistles  addressed,  m  the 
book  of  the  Revelation,  to  the  seven  churches  ot 
Asia.     We  give  it  in  the  words  of  Cyprian.    And 
as  it  may  possibly  amuse  the  reader,  while  it  con- 
vinces him  that  we  were   correct  in  saymg  that 
Archbishop  Potter  is  one  of  the  real  authors  un- 
der the  signatures  of  Cyprian,  kc.  we  shall  put  his 
Grace  of  Canterbury  side  by  side  with  our  Albany 
friend. 


Potter. 


«  St.   John,   in    the    three 
fust  chapters  of  his   Revela- 
tion, has  given  us  a  Uvely  de- 
scription   of     seven     bishops 
who    presided   in   the    seven 
principal  cities  of  the  pro-con- 
sular Asia.    Our  Lord  is  there 
introduced,      sending      seven 
epistles  to  the  seven  churches 
of  these  cities,  directed  to  the 
seven  angels  of  the   churches, 
whom  he  calls  the  seven  stars 
in  his  right  hand.     Now  if  it 
appears  that  the  seven  angels 


Cyprian. 
"  In  the   three  first  chap- 
ters of  the  Revelations  of  St. 
John,  we  find  absolute  demon- 
stration  of    the    existence   of 
the  Episcopal  dignity  and  au- 
thority, at  the  time  in  which 
this    work   was    written.     In 
these  chapters,  St.  John  gives 
us  a  description   of  the  seven 
Bishops,    who    superintended 
the  interests  of  the  church  in 
the  seven   principal   cities  in 
the  Pro-Consular  Asia.     Our 
Lord  is  represented  as  sending 
seven   Epistles   to   the  seven 
churches   of  these   cities,   di- 
rected to  the   seven    angels  of 
the  churches,  whom  he  calls 
the   "  seven  stars  in  his  right 
hand."     From  all  the  circum- 


134 


Review. 


Potter. 

were  so  many  single  persons 
invested  with  supreme  autho- 
rity in  the  seven  churches, 
there  can  be  no  reason  to 
doubt,  whether  they  were  the 
bishops  of  these  churches  ;  a 
bishop  being  nothing  else  but 
one  who  has  chief  authority 
in  the  church. 

"  Let  us  examine  in  the 
first  place,  whether  the  seveii 
angels  were  so  many  single 
persons  1  And  first  of  all,  it 
is  manifest  they  were  not  the 
whole  church  or  collective 
body  of  Christians  in  their 
several  cities  ;  because  the 
churches  are  represented  by 
seven  candlesticks,  which  are 
all  along  distinguished  from 
the  seven  stars,  which  are  em- 
blems of  the  angels.  Neither 
Avere  they  any  select  number 
or  body  of  men  :  For  they  are 
constantly  mentioned  as  sin- 
gle persons  ;  the  angel  of  the 
church  of  Ephesus,  the  angel 
of  the  church  of  Smyrna,  and 
so  the  rest." 


"  Accordingly,  both  he  and 
all  the  rest  are  constantly  ad- 
dressed to  in  the  singular 
number  ;  /  know  thy  tvorks, 
J  have  a  few  things  against 
thee,  remember  how  thou   hast 


Cyprian. 
stances  that  are  mentioned,  it 
undeniably  appears  that  these 
seven  angels  were  so  many 
single  persons,  invested  with 
supreme  authority  in  the 
churches  ;  that  is  to  say,  they 
were  the  bishops  of  those 
churches. 

"  I  say  it  manifestly  ap- 
pears, that  these  seven  angels 
of  the  churches,  whom  the 
Lord  calls  the  "  seven  stars" 
in  his  right  hand,  were  single 
persons.  They  were  not  the 
whole  church  or  collective 
body  of  Christians.  This  is 
proved  incontestably  from 
these  considerations.  The 
whole  Churches,  or  collective 
body  of  Christians,  are  repre- 
sented by  "  seven  candle- 
sticks," which  are  distinguish- 
ed from  the  "  seven  stars," 
that  are  emblems  of  the  An- 
gels, the  Bishops.  They  are 
constantly  mentioned  in  the 
singular  number.  "  The  An- 
gel of  the  Church  of  Ephe- 
sus"— "  the  Angel  of  the 
Church  of  Smyrna,"  and  so 
of  the  rest. 

And  in  the  epistle  to  Thyatira 
it  is  said,  "  I  know  thy  works." 
"  I  have  a  few  things  against 
thee."  "  Remember  how  thou 
hast  heard."  "  Thou  hast 
kept     the    word    of    my    pa- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy. 


136 


Potter. 
heard,  thou  hast  kept  the  loord 
of  my  patience,  and  so  in  the 
rest,  where  our  Lord  speaks  to 
them  in  particular  :  But  when 
what  he  wi'ites  equally  con- 
cerns the  people,  he  changes 
his  style,  and  speaks  in  the 
plural  :  The  devil  shall  cast 
some  of  you  into  prison.  Thou 
hast  not  denied  my  faith  when 
Antipas  my  faithful  martyr 
was  slain  among  you.  /  ivill 
reioard  every  one  of  you  ac- 
cording to  your  loorks.  21iat 
which  ye  have,  hold  fast  till 
I  come.  Which  variation  of 
the  number,  is  a  plain  argu- 
ment that  some  parts  of  these 
Epistles  relate  to  the  whole 
churches,  and  others  only  to 
the  persons  of  the  angels.^'' 

"  But  there  is  one  thing  yet 
behind,  which  will  put  this 
matter  beyond  dispute  :  name- 
ly, that  the  titles  of  angels  and 
stars  are  constantly  applied  in 
this  book  of  Revelation  to  sin- 
gle men :  Our  Lord  is  called 
the  Morning  Star,  and  the 
Sun,  and  the  apostles  are  call- 
ed twelve  stars,  and  twelve  an- 
gels ;  but  there  is  not  one  ex- 
ample where  these  titles  are 
given  to  any  society  or  number 
of  men.  So  that  if  we  will  al- 
low the  divine  author  of  this 
hook  to  speak  in  this  place,  as 
he  docs  in  all  others,  the  angels 


Cyprian. 
ticnce."     This    is     the    style 
wliich  is  used  when  the  Angel 
or  Bishop  of  the   Church    is 

addressed. 

But  when  what  is  said  relates 
to  ihe  people,  the  style  is  al- 
tered, the  plural  number  is 
then  used.  •'  The  devil  shall 
cast  some  of  you  into  pri- 
son." 

"  I  will  reward  every  one  of 
you  according  to  your  works. 
Thai  which  yc  have,  hold  fast 
till  I  come."  And  this  vari- 
ation in  the  number,  proves 
that  some  parts  of  these  Epis- 
tles relate  to  the  zchole  Church, 
and  others  only  to  the  Angels. 


But  what  places  this  subject 
beyond  all  i-easonable  doubt  is 
this  circumstance  :  The  titles 
of  Angels  and  stars  are  con- 
stantly ajiplied  in  the  book  of 
Revelation  to  single  men,  and 
never  to  a  society  or  number  of 
men.  Our  Lord  is  called  the 
"  rnornhig  star  and  the  sun," 
and  the  twelve  Apostles  are 
called  "  twelve  stars,"  and 
"  twelve  Angels." 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
the  seven  stars  or  Angels  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  are  single 
persons. 


136 


Review. 


Potter. 
of  the  seven  churches  can  be 
none  but  single  persons. 

"  The  next  thhig  to  be  made 
out  is,  that  these  single  per- 
sons were  men  of  chief  autho- 
rity in  their  several  churches. 
And  we  might  safely  conclude 
they  were  so,  though  we  had 
no  other  proof  of  it,  because 
our  Lord  has  directed  to  them 
the  Epistles,  which  he  designed 
for  the  use  of  their  churches. 
But  there  are  several  other  ar- 
guments, which  prove  that  the 
angels  were  men  of  eminent 
station  and  authority :  For 
whereas  the  churches  are  on- 
ly called  candlesticks,  the  an- 
gels are  resembled  to  stars, 
which  give  light  to  the  can- 
dlesticks.''^ 


"  They  are  praised  for  all  the 
good,  and  blamed  for  all  the 
evil  which  happened  in  their 
churches.  The  «w^e?of  Ephe- 
sus  is  commended,  because  he 
could  not  bear  them  that  loere 
evil,  and  had  tried  those  who 
called  themselves  Apostles,  and 
were  not  so  ;  which  seems  to 
imply,  that  he  had  judicially 
convicted  them  to  be  impostors. 
And  the  angel  of  Pergamos 
is  reproved  for  having  them 
who  hold  the  doctrine  of  Ba- 
laam ;  that  is,  the  Nicolaitans, 
who    allowed    themselves    to 


Cyprian. 


That  these  persons  possess- 
ed supreme  authority  in  the 
Churches,  is  also  demonstra- 
ted from  these  considerations. 


These  Epistles  are  addressed 
to  them  alone. 


The  Churches  are  called 
candlesticks,  and  they  the 
stars  which  give  light  to  the 
candlesticks. 


The  seven  angels  are  prais- 
ed for  all  the  good  which  they 
had  done,  and  blamed  for  all 
the  evil  which  happened  in  the 
Churches.  The  Angel  of 
Ephesus  is  commended  be- 
cause "  he  could  not  bear  them 
that  were  evil,  and  had  tried 
those  who  called  themselves 
Apostles,  and  were  not  so," 
which  seems  to  imply  that  he 
had  convicted  them  of  impos- 
ture. The  Angel  of  Perga- 
mos is  reproved  for  having 
them  "  who  hold  the  doctrine 
of  Balaam,  and  he  is  severely 


Essays  on  Episcopacy, 


137 


Potter. 
commit  fornication,  and  to  eat 
things  sacrificed  to  idols  ;  and 
he  is  severely  threatened,  un- 
less he  repented:  which  shows 
he  had  authority  to  correct 
these  disorders,  otherwise  he 
could  not  justly  have  been 
punished  for  them.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  angel  of 
Thyatira,  who  is  blamed  for 
suffering  Jezebel,  who  called 
herself  a  prophetess,  to  teach 
and  seduce  the  people.  And 
the  angel  of  Sardis  is  com- 
manded to  be  watchful,  and  to 
strengthen  those  who  are  ready 
to  die ;  otherwise  our  Lord 
threatens  to  come  on  him,  as  a 
thief,  at  an  hour  which  he 
should  not  knoiv.'''' 


Cyprian. 
threatened  unless  he  repent- 
ed." This  shows  that  he  pos- 
sessed authority  to  correct 
these  disorders,  or  he  could 
not  justly  be  menaced  with 
punishment  for  permitting 
them.  The  Angel  of  Thyatira 
also  is  blamed  for  suffering 
"  Jezebel,"  who  called  herself 
a  prophetess,  to  teach  and  se- 
duce the  people.  And  the  An- 
gel of  Sardis  is  commanded 
"  to  be  watchful,  and  to 
strengthen  those  who  are  ready 
to  die,"  otherwise  our  Lord 
threatens  to  come  on  him  "  as 
a  thief ;  at  an  hour  which  he 
should  not  know." 


The  writers  under  review,  having  a  great  con- 
tempt for  all  reasoning  from  names,  promised  to 
intrench  themselves  within  scriptural /ac^^.  One 
of  their  facts  they  find  in  the  history  of  the  "  stars" 
or  "  angels"  of  the  seven  churches.  Yet  if  the 
reader  shall  attentively  inspect  their  argument, 
which  we  have  placed  before  him  in  its  full 
strength,  he  will  perceive  that  it  rests  entirely  upon 
their  interpretation  of  two  names.  These  are 
"  angel"  and  "  star :"  which,  in  the  symbohcal 
language  of  the  scripture,  are  as  really  names  of 
office,  as  bishop,  presbyter,  deacon,  are  in  its  al- 
phabetical or  common  language.     The  aspect  of 

Vol.  III.  18 


138  Review. 

the  fact  changes  with  the  construction  of  these 
two  symbols.  You  must  fix  their  sense  before 
you  can  tell  what  the  fact  is.  Unless  you  can 
prove  that  "  star"  and  "  angel"  necessarily  de- 
note individuals,  and  such  individuals  as  dioce- 
san bishops,  the  fact,  instead  of  being  for  the  hie- 
rarchy, will  be  against  her.  And  thus  her  advo- 
cates, under  the  pretext  of  "  absolute  demonstra- 
tion," put  us  off  with  what  they  themselves  have 
again  and  again  declared  to  be  "  miserable 
sophistry" — "  the  old  and  wretched  sophistry  of 
names." 

Let  us,  however,  examine  this,  their  "  absolute 
demonstration"  of  diocesan  Episcopacy.  It  turns, 
as  we  just  now  said,  upon  the  interpretation  of  the 
symbolical  titles,  "  angel"  and  "  star."  These, 
our  prelatical  friends  maintain,  "  are  constantly  ap- 
plied in  the  book  of  Revelation  to  single  men,  and 
7iever  to  a  society  or  number  of  men^  Such  is  the 
assertion — now  for  the  proof 

"  The  whole  churches,  or  collective  bodies  of  Christians,  are 
represented  by  "  seven  candlesticks,"  which  are  distinguished 
from  the  "  seven  stars,"  that  are  emblems  of  the  angels,  the 
bishops." 

The  distinction  is  admitted  :  but  it  is  equally 
marked  upon  the  Presbyterian  plan.  For  the  col- 
lective body  of  the  ministry  is  quite  as  distinguish- 
able from  their  churches,  as  the  bishops  alone  can 
be.     Nothing  is  gained  here.     We  go  on. 

"  They,"  the  angels,  "  are  constantly  mentioned  in  the  sin- 
sular  number." 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  139 

• 

What  then  ?  Does  this  prove  that  the  singular 
term  "  angel"  has  never  a  collective  sense  ? 

What  next  ?  Nothing  at  all.  Let  out  readers 
examine,  again,  the  whole  of  what  Cyprian  has 
said  upon  this  point,  and  if  they  can  detect,  in  the 
multitude  of  his  words,  and  his  show  of  illustration, 
any  thing  more  than  his  mere  assertion,  we  shall 
be  disappointed. 

The  stars  and  angels,  says  he,  are  distinguished 
from  the  churches.  True — but  they  may  be  so 
without  being  diocesan  bishops 

"  They  are  constantly  mentioned  in  the  singular 
number" — which  is  not  true.  And  if  it  were,  the 
question  still  is,  whether  the  symbolical  term  in  the 
singular  number  must  necessarily  signify  only  a 
single  person — O  yes,  says  Cyprian, most  undoubt- 
edly. "  What  places  this  subject  beyond  all  rea- 
sonable doubt,  is  this  circumstance.  The  titles 
of  angels  and  stars  are  constantly  applied  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  to  single  men,  and  never  to  a 
society  or  number  of  men  !"  Now  this  is  exactly 
the  thing  to  be  proved. 

jlmphora  ccepit 
Institui :  currente  rota  cur  urceus  exit  ? 

Cyprian  sets  out  with  a  threat  of  "  absolute 
demonstration,"  and  leaves  off  with  begging  the 
question.* 

*  Potter,  in  his  zeal  to  make  out  the  prelatic  character  of  these 
angels,  presses  into  his  service  a  varioun  reading.     "  If,"  says  he, 


140  Review. 

That  the  assertions  which  Cyprian  has  bor- 
rowed from  Potter,  are  not  accompanied  with 
quite  an  "  absolute  demonstration,"  may  be  ga- 
thered from  the  hght  in  which  they  are  considered 
by  Episcopal  writers  no  way  inferiour  to  Potter 
himself 

«  Methinks,"  says  Dr.  Henri/  More,  "  it  is  ex- 
tremely harsh  to  conceit  that  these  seven  stars 
are  merely  the  seven  bishops  of  any  particular 
churches  of  j^sia,  as  if  the  rest  were  not  sup- 
ported nor  guided  by  the  hand  of  Christ ;  or  as 
if  there  were  but  seven  in  his  right  hand,  but  all 
the  rest  in  his  left.     Such  high  representations 

"  iu  the  epistle  to  Thyatira,  instead  of  (jrjv  ywaiKa  u^cfii\,)  the  tvoman 
Jezebel,  we  read  {TrivywaiKa  aov  it^e(i)i\)  thy  wife  Jezebel,  as  it  is  in 
St.  Cyprian,  the  Syriac  version,  the  Alexandrian,  and  several 
other  manuscript  copies,  then  the  Angel  of  Thyatira  was  a  married 
man,  and  consequently  but  one  person."* 

Learning,  when  not  well  directed,  falls  into  absurdities  which 
plain  sense  avoids.  It  is  hard  for  a  man  to  suspect  himself  of  blun- 
dering when  he  is  displaying  his  erudition.  But  on  this  occasion, 
the  eyes  of  Potter  seem  to  have  been  blinded  by  the  dust  of  his 
manuscripts.  If  we  adopt  his  reading,  and  make  "  Jezebel"  a 
literal  woman,  by  making  her  the  wife  of  the  prelate  of  Thyatira, 
the  symbolical  or  figurative  sense  of  the  text  is  gone.  And  in  or- 
der to  be  consistent,  the  crimes  charged  upon  her  must  also  be 
literal.  Thus  we  shall  not  only  have  my  lady  of  Thyatira  an  open 
adulteress  ;  but  the  diocese  a  huge  brothel  under  her  inspection  ; 
where  by  example  and  by  precept,  she  initiates  her  husband's  flock 
in  the  mysteries  of  lewdness  and  idolatry.  A  goodly  occupation 
for  the  spouse  of  a  diocesan  !  Bad  times,  one  would  think,  for  an 
angel-bishop ;  and  not  the  most  flattering  compliment  to  episcopal 
discipline- 

*  Discourse  of  Church  government,  p.  145,  3d  edit. 


Essays  o?i  Episcopacy.  141 

cannot  be  appropriated  to  any  seven  particu- 
lar CHURCHES  WHATSOEVER."  Again,  "  By  an- 
gels, according  to  the  apocalyptick  style,  all  the 
agents  under  their  presidency  are  represented 
or  insinuated — and  it  is  so  frequent  and  obvious 
in  the  Apocalypse,  that  none  that  is  versed  there- 
in can  any  ways  doubt  of  it."* 

The  great,  and  justly  celebrated  Joseph  Mede, 
observes,  that  "  Angels,  by  a  mode  of  speaking 
not  uncommon  in  this  book,  are  put  for  the 
nations  over  which  they  were  thought  to  preside. 
Which  appears  hence,  that  they  who,  by  the 
injunction  of  the  oracle,  are  loosed,  are  armies  of 
cavalry  sent  forth  to  slaughter  men."t 

Just  after  he  adds,  "  the  four  angels,  (Rev.  ix. 
14,)  "  signify  so  many  Sultanies  or  kingdoms." J 

Dr.  Fulk,  in  his  answer  to  the  Rhemish  Testa- 
ment, remarks,  that  "  St.  John,  by  the  angels  of 
the  churches,  meaneth  not  all  that  should  wear 
on  their  heads  mitres,  and  hold-  crosier-staves  in 
their  hands,  like  dead  idols,  but  them  that  are 
faithful  messengers  of  God's  word,  and  utter 
and  declare  the   same.      They  are    called   the 

*  Exposition  of  the  seven  churches.  Works,  p.  724. 

f  Augeli  ponuntur  pro  gentibus  quibus  praeesse  credebautur, 
non  inusitata  iu  hoc  libro  metonymia.  Id  ex  eo  apparet,  quod 
qui  contiuuo  ex  oraculi  prsescripto  solvuntur,  Exercitus  Equestres 
sunt,  homiaibus  occideudis  emissi.  In  Apocap.  B.  III.  Tub.  VI. 
Works,  p.  471. 

i  Angeli  quatuor  totidem  Sultanias  seu  regna  significant.    Ibid. 


142  Review. 

Angels  of  the  churches  because  they  are  God^s  mes- 


»* 


The  famous  Stillingfleet,  in  his  Irenicum,  asks, 
concerning  these  angels,  "  If,  in  the  prophetick 
style,  any  unity  may  be  set  down  by  way  of  re- 
presentation of  a  multitude  ;  what  evidence  can 
be  brought  from  the  nmnc,  that  by  it  some  one 
particular  person  must  be  understood  ?" — And 
a  little  further  he  says,  "  If  many  things  in  the 
Epistles  be  direct  to  the  angels,  but  yet  so  as  to 
concern  the  whole  body,  then  of  necessity,  the 
angel  must  be  taken  as  a  representative  of  the 
whole  body,  and  then,  why  may  not  the  word 
angel  be  taken  by  way  of  representation  of  the 
body  itself;  either  of  the  whole  church,  or,  which 
is  far  more  probable,  of  the  Consessus,  or  order 
of  Presbyters  in  that  church  ?  We  see  what 
miserable,  unaccountable  arguments  those  are, 
which  are  brought  for  any  kind  of  government, 
from  metaphorical  or  ambiguous  expressions  or 
names  promiscuously  used."t 


*  This  and  the  followuig  quotation,  are  from  the  Appendix  to 
Ayton's  Original  Constitution  of  the  Christian  Church. 

f  It  is  the  fashion  with  the  Jure  divino  prelatists  to  decry  this 
work  of  Stillingfleet  as  the  production  of  his  juvenile  days  ;  and 
as  being  recanted  by  him  in  maturer  life.  The  true  reason  of 
their  dislike  to  it  is,  that  it  has  sorely  gravelled  them  from  the 
date  of  its  publication  till  the  present  hour,  and  is  likely  to  gravel 
them  in  all  time  hereafter.  We  cannot,  however,  see  what  the 
age  or  the  recantation  of  the  author,  (if  he  did  recant,)  has  to  do 
with  the  question,  any  further  than  as  it  may  be  influenced  by  his 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  143 

We  quote  these  passages,  not  to  make  them 
our  own,  but  to  show  that  Episcopal  writers  of 
the  highest  reputation,  entertain  opinions  very- 
different  from  those  of  Potter  and  Cyprian,  as  to 
the  evidence  which  the  apocalyptic  angels  give 
in  favour  of  their  hierarchy  : 

"  It  is  absolute  demonstration,"  says  Cyprian. 
"  It  is  a  harsh  conceit,"  says  Dr.  H.  More. 

"  The  titles  of  angels  and  stars  are  never  ap- 
plied," says  Cyprian  after  Potter,  "  to  a  society 
or  number  of  men,"     They  signify   "  them  that 

private  opinion.  "  Old  men  are  not  always  wise  ;"  nor  do  green 
years  detract  from  the  force  of  argument.  Facts  and  reasonings 
having  no  dependence  upon  a  writer's  name,  stand  or  fall  in  their 
own  strength.  It  is  one  thing  to  recant,  and  quite  another  to  re- 
fute. The  learned,  but  unhappy  Whitby,  who,  in  his  commenta- 
ry on  the  New  Testament,  had  zealously  defended  the  divinity 
and  atonement  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  left  a  work  behind  him 
entitled  'Xarcpat  <ppovriScs,  or  After  Thoughts,  in  which  he  denied 
both.  Yet  his  proofs  of  his  previous  belief  remain  unanswered 
by  himself,  and  unanswerable  by  any  other  man.  We  see  that 
it  is  very  possible  for  great  and  learned  men  to  change  for  the 
worse.  Therefore,  although  Stillingfleet,  whether  of  his  own  ac- 
cord, or  by  yielding  to  the  teazings  and  menaces  of  others,  did  re- 
tract the  doctrines  of  his  Irenicum,  it  does  not  follow  that  all  his 
facts  and  reasonings  are  false,  or  that  he  himself  drew  nearer  to 
the  truth.  He  renounced  the  Irenicum,  the  prelatists  cry — Good. 
Did  he  answer  it  ?  we  ask.  Howbeit,  since  Dr.  Hobart  has  re- 
presented himself  and  his  brother-writers,  as  young  men,  and 
even  "  striplings  ;"  who  knows,  but,  upon  their  arriving  at  maturi- 
ty, when  they  shall  have  sown  their  intellectual  "  wild  oats,"  their 
opinion  may  change  in  a  direction  contrary  to  that  of  the  bishop 
of  Worcester,  and  that  they  may  yet  ripen  into  excellent  Presby- 
terians ? 


144  Review. 

are  the  faithful  messengers  of  God's  word  ;"  an- 
swers Dr.  Fulk — They  "  are  put  for  the  nations 
over  which  they  were  thought  to  preside,"  adds 
the  venerable  Mede — More  follows  again,  with  a 
declaration,  "  That  no  man  versed  in  the  apoca- 
lyptical style,  can  any  wise  doubt  that  by  "  angels" 
all  the  agents  under  their  presidency  are  repre- 
sented." And  StillingfleeU  their  own  Stillingfleet, 
calls  the  argument  of  the  hierarchists  from 
these  symbolical  titles,  a  "  miserable"  one  ;  thus 
avenging  the  Presbyterian  upon  them,  by  deahng 
out  to  them  in  their  own  way,  "  measure  for  mea- 
sure."— 

To  which  side  the  scale  inclines,  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  discern. 

That  the  epistles  in  question  are  addressed  to 
the  persons  designated  by  "  stars"  and  "  angels," 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  imply  that  these  persons 
were  invested  with  authority  over  the  churches, 
is  freely  conceded.  It  is  also  conceded  that  "  an- 
gel" and  "  star"  are  titles  of  office  which  belong 
exclusively  to  the  ministry.  Unless  we  greatly 
mistake,  "  stars,"  in  the  symbohcal  language,  sig- 
nify, throughout  the  whole  Bible,  "ministers  of 
religion." 

But  we  contend  that  they  signify  ministers  ol 
religion  with  regard  to  their  general  ojice,  and  not 
with  regard  to  their  relative  dignity.  Jesus  Christ 
is  a  "  star,"  the  twelve  apostles  are  "  stars" — and 
so  are  the  apostate  clergy,  figured  by  the  "  third 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  145 

part  of  the  stars,"  which  the  dragon  cast  down 
with  his  tail  to  the  earth.  Who  does  not  see,  that 
the  only  point  in  which  the  symbol  agrees  to  the 
subject  in  all  these  cases,  is  the  common  charac- 
ter of  the  religious  ministry  ;  distinction  of  rank 
being  utterly  disregarded  ?  On  this  principle,  the 
"  stars"  must  mean  the  ministers  of  the  churches 
without  discrimination ;  every  one  being  a  "  star." 
It  is,  therefore,  impossible  to  discover  under  this 
emblem,  any  order  of  ministers  to  the  exclusion  of 
any  other. 

In  this  general  reasoning,  the  hierarchy  might, 
perhaps,  concur  without  much  prejudice  to  her 
cause.  She  might  insist,  that  a  symbol,  common, 
in  its  own  nature,  to  all  ministers  of  rehgion,  is  re- 
stricted, by  the  conditions  of  the  text,  to  a  single 
individual,  who,  from  the  functions  ascribed  to 
him,  must  be  a  superiour  officer,  and  not  one  of  a 
college,  concessus,  or  presbytery,  having  equal 
authority. 

There  is  internal  evidence  in  the  passage  itself, 
that  this  construction,  though  ingenious  and  acute, 
cannot  be  true.  For  as  the  "  candlesticks"  are 
emblematical  of  the  churches,  and  as  there  is  but 
one  star  to  give  hght  to  each  candlestick,  it  would 
follow  that  there  was  but  a  single  minister  in  each 
of  the  churches  ;  and  thus  the  Episcopalian  would 
overthrow  himself:  for  without  inferiour,  there  can 
be  no  superiour,  clergy.  Surely  he  will  not  say, 
that  the  bishop  alone  did  all  the  preaching,  gave 

Vol.  IIL  19 


146  R 


evieiv. 


all  the  instruction,  and  set  all  the  example :  i.  e. 
emitted  all  the  hght  on  account  of  which  ministers 
are  called  "  stars."  The  other  clergy  had  some 
share  in  these  useful  functions.  They  too  "  preach- 
ed the  word ;"  they  too,  taught  "  from  house  to 
house ;"  they  too,  "  let  their  light  shine  before 
others."  Now,  one  "  star"  being  appropriated  to 
one  "  church,"  as  one  candle  is  to  one  "  candle- 
stick ;"  it  follows,  from  the  nature  of  the  compari- 
son, that  as  one  candle  is  the  full  complement  of 
light  for  one  candlestick ;  so  one  star  is  the  full 
complement  of  light  for  one  church.  But  the  light 
which  shone  in  these  churches  did  not  emanate 
from  any  individual ;  it  emanated  from  a  number 
of  individuals ;  from  the  collective  body  of  the 
ministers  of  religion.  Therefore,  the  "  star" 
which  expresses  the  whole  light  in  one  of  these 
churches,  is  a  symbol,  not  of  a  single  minister, 
but  of  her  ministry  collectivch/.  It  would  be  a 
darksome  diocese,  indeed,  which  should  enjoy  no 
rays  of  light  but  those  which  proceed  from  the 
bishop. 

Let  us  now  advert  to  the  other  symbol,  viz. 
"  Angel."  This  too,  the  hierarchists,  whom  we 
oppose,  say,  is  "  constantly  applied  in  the  book  of 
Revelation  to  a  single  man,  and  never  to  a  society 
or  number  of  men." 

It  looks  somewhat  uncivil  to  contradict  so  posi- 
tive an  assertion ;  but  we  must  contradict  it ;  for 
it  is  not  true.     And  if,  in  proving  it  to  be  false,  we 


Essays  071  Episcopacy.  147 

prove  its  authors  either  to  be  ignorant  of  the 
scriptures,  or  wilfully  to  misrepresent  them,  we 
cannot  help  it.  One  passage  from  the  book  of 
Revelation  itself,  overturns  the  very  foundation 
upon  which  Cyprian  and  his  associates  have  reared 
their  "  absolute  demonstration." 

/  saw,  says  the  prophet,  another  angel  Jly  in  the 
midst  of  heaven,  having  the  everlasting  gospel  to 
preach  unto    them  that  dwell  on   the  earth,   and  to 

EVERY  NATION,  and  KINDRED,  and  TONGUE,  and  PEO- 
PLE.    (Rev.  xiv.  6.) 

"  Heaven,"  in  this  book,  is  the  ascertained  sym- 
bol of  the  Christian  church,  from  which  issue  forth 
the  "  ministers  of  grace"  to  the  nations.  As  the 
gospel  is  preached  only  by  men,  this  "  angel"  who 
has  it  to  preach  to  "  every  nation,  and  kindred, 
and  tongue,  and  people,"  must  be  the  symbol  of 
a  human  ministry.  And  as  it  is  perfectly' evident 
that  no  single  man  can  thus  preach  it,  but  that 
there  must  be  a  great  company  of  preachers  to  car- 
ry it  to  "  every  nation,  and  kindred,  and  tongue, 
and  people,"  the  angel  mentioned  in  the  text  is, 
and  of  necessity  must  be,  the  symbol  of  that^rea; 
comjmny.  We  might  produce  other  examples; 
but  this  is  decisive.  It  shows  the  proposition  of 
Potter,  Cyprian,  &c.  to  be  one  of  the  most  rash 
and  unfounded  assertions  into  which  the  ardour  of 
party  ever  betrayed  a  disputant. 

Assuming  it  now  as  proved,  that  the  term  "  an- 
gel" is  applied  in  this  book  to  a  collective  body,  or 


148  Review. 


^^V^ 


a  number  of  men  joined  in  a  common  commission, 
we  demand  the  reason  of  its  being  restricted  to  an 
individual  in  the  epistles  to  the  churches  of  Asia. 
Signifying  "  a  messenger,"  it  is  in  itself  as  appli- 
cable to  any  preacher  of  the  gospel  as  to  a  dio- 
cesan bishop.  If  he  was  of  old,  what  most  of  the 
diocesans  are  now,  he  was,  of  all  the  clergy  in  his 
diocese,  the  one  who  had  the  least  claim  to  the 
title.  To  "  preach  the  word,"  to  "  declare  the 
whole  counsel  of  God,"  to  instruct  the  people,  we 
are  told  plainly  enough,  are  not  the  peculiar  at- 
tributes of  the  bishop.  By  what  rule  of  propriety 
should  he  be  characterised  by  symbols  which  are 
foreign  from  his  appropriate  functions  ?  by  sym- 
bols which  describe  exactly  the  functions  of  those 
ministers  whom,  we  are  taught,  they  do  not  re- 
present.* 

The  advocates  of  the  hierarchy  must  have  sum- 
moned up  the  most  desperate  resolution,  when 
they  ventured  upon  the  declaration  which  we  have 

*  "  Angel  of  the  church,"  is  a  phrase  borrowed  from  the  syna- 
gogue. "  It  answers  to  the  Hebrew  "*T)^\f  fl'^tl^'  ^^^  Legate,  or 
delegate  of  the  church.  A  name  which  was  given  in  the  syna- 
gogue to  experienced  and  learned  men,  especially  the  Doctors  (or 
teachers,)  who  were  usually  delegated  to  pray  for  the  public  as- 
sembly, whether  in  ordinary  or  extraordinary  cases.  So  that  by 
Angels  of  the  churches  must  be  here  understood  those  rulers  of  the 
Christian  church,  whose  office  it  was  to  offer  up  public  prayers  in 
the  church,  to  manage  sacred  concerns,  and  discourse  to  the  people." 
Vitringce  anacrisis apocalypseos,  p.  25.  To  the  same  purpose  speaks 
the  profoundly  learned  Lightfoot.     Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  341.    Fol. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.^  149 

exposed.     To  do  them  justice,  they  seem  not  to 
have  been  forsaken  of  those  "  compunctious  visit- 
ings,"  which  occasionally  trouble  such  as  suspect 
the  righteousness  of  their  cause.     We  infer  this 
from  their  growing  dogmatical  and  rather  unruly 
in  their  asseverations,  nearly  in  proportion  as  they 
find  themselves  beset  with  difficulty.     Not  unlike 
men  who  are  accustomed  to  tell  «  a  tough  story," 
and  when  they  perceive  the  credulity  of  their  au- 
dience to  be  too  hard  pressed,  back  their  veracity 
with  a  file  of  oaths.  Any  plain  reader  will  observe, 
on  a  slight  inspection  of  these  epistles,  that  they 
address  the  angel  of  a  particular  church  in  the 
singular  or  plural  number  indifferently.     Thus  to 
the  angel  of  the  church  in  Smyrna,  the  Redeemer 
says,  /  know  THY  works,  and  tribulation  and  poverty, 
but  THOU  art  rich— Fear  none  of  those  things  which 
THOU  shalt  SUFFER.     Behold  the  devil  shall  cast 
SOME  o/ YOU  into  prison,  that  YE  may  be  tried;  and 
YE  shall  have  tribulation  ten  days  :    be  THOU  faith- 
ful unto  the  death  ;  and  I  will  give  THEE  a  crown  of 

life* 

We  ask  any  dispassionate  man  whether  all  this 
is  not  addressed  to  the  angel  in  Smyrna  }  Thou, 
says  the  text ;  "  Thou,"  the  angel,  "  shalt  suffer." 
How  }  What  }  "  Thus,"  saith  the  text,  "  the 
devil  shall  cast  into  prison  some  of  you'' — you 
who  are  signified  by  the  angel.  However,  "  be 
thou  faithful  unto  the  death  j"    i.  e.  although  thou 

*  Rev.  ii.  8— 10. 


1 50  Review. 

shouldest  die  for  being  faithful ;  "  and  I  will  give 
/Aec,"  whom  ?  certainly  the  persecuted,  "  I  will 
give  thee  a  crown  of  life."  This  is  so  obvious, 
that,  in  order  to  evade  its  force,  the  Episcopal 
writers  represent  the  epistles  as  addressed  partly 
to  the  bishop  and  partly  to  the  people. 

"  When  what  is  said  relates  to  ihepeople,  the  style  is  altered  ; 
the  plural  number  is  then  used."  See  Cyprian  and  Potter  as 
above. 

This  gloss  is  contrary, 

1.  To  the  plain  and  natural  construction  of  the 
prophet's  words;  which,  using  sometimes  the  sin- 
gular, and  sometimes  the  plural,  number,  when 
speaking  of  the  a^?^c/,  leads  us  to  a  simple  and  easy 
solution,  by  supposing  that  he  employs  that  term  in 
a  collective  sense,  of  the  whole  ministry  of  the  church. 

2.  To  their  own  principles  which  the  Episco- 
pal writers  have  laid  down  as  containing  an  "  ab- 
solute demonstration"  of  the  prelatic  dignity  of 
these  angels,  viz.  "  That  the  titles  of  angels  and 
stars  are  constantly  apphed  in  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion to  single  men,  and  never  to  a  society  or  number 
of  men."  The  epistle  is  written  to  the  angel  in 
Smyrna.  "  Angel,"  say  they,  always  signifies  a 
single  person,  and  never  a  number  of  men ;  and  yet 
they  say,  that  of  this  very  epistle  to  the  angel,  part 
is  addressed  directly  to  the  people^  who  are  "  a  so- 
ciety or  number  of  men." 

3.  To  their  own  distinction  between  the  em- 
blems which  point  out  the  ministry  and  the  church- 
es respectively. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  131 

"  The  stars  and  angels,"  say  tljey,  "  were  not  the  whole 
church  or  collective  body  of  Christians.  This  is  proved  in- 
contestably  from  these  considerations.  The  whole  churches 
or  collective  body  of  Christians,  are  I'epresented  by  "  seven 
candlesticks,"  which  are  distinguished  from  the  "  seven  stars" 
that  are  emblems  of  the  angels,  the  bishops,"  Sec.  See  above. 

The  distinction  is  just;  but  it  is  completely 
overthrown  ni  their  subsequent  interpretations. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  they  tell  us  very  truly,  that 
the  collective  body  of  Christians  is  signified  by  the 
symbol  of  a  "  candlestick :"  and  in  the  next,  that 
they  are  directly  addressed  in  the  letter  sent  to  the 
angel,  who  is,  say  they,  a  single  person  :  i.  e.  they 
are  explicitly  and  formally  addressed^  under  an  ap- 
pellation which  is  7iever  applied  to  them. 

4.  To  the  known  use  of  those  scriptural  em- 
blems, "  star"  and  "  angel."  These  titles  in  the 
context  are  perfectly  synonymous ;  whatever  is 
meant  by  "  star,"  is  acknowledged  to  be  meaiit  by 
"  angel."  Now  both  these  symbols  depict  official 
character ;  and  consequently,  when  applied  to  the 
Christian  church,  cannot  mean  the  people  as  dis- 
tinguished from  their  ministers.  Therefore,  un- 
der the  term  "  angel,"  the  ministry  and  the  people 
cannot  be  distinctly  addressed. 

5.  To  the  tenour  of  the  exhortations  and  pro- 
mise in  the  text.  If  the  "  angel"  is  the  collective 
body  of  the  ministry  upon  whom  the  persecution 
was  to  fall,  then  the  exhortations.  Fear  none  of  those 
things  which  thou  shalt  suffer — Be  thou  faithful  unto 
the  death  ;  and  the  promise,  I  tvill  give  thee  a  crown 


152  R 


eview 


of  life,  are  in  harmony  with  the  pre-monition  that 
the  Devil  should  cast  some  of  them  into  prison.  The 
anticipation  of  evil  is  softened  by  the  assurance 
of  support.  But  according  to  the  Episcopal  con- 
struction, the  sorrow  goes  one  way  and  the  cpn- 
solation  the  other :  the  bishop  is  exhorted  not  to 
fear :  to  be  faithful  unto  the  death.  But  it  seems 
that  the  people  only  are  to  bear  the  calamity. 
'  The  bishop  has  a  glorious  promise  of  a  crown  of 
life ;  but  not  a  word  to  cheer  his  oppressed  flock. 
Cold  comfort  this  to  the  poor  prisoners  cooped 
up  by  the  devil  in  a  dungeon !  One  would  think 
that  the  "  cup  of  salvation"  might  have  been  put 
to  the  lips  which  were  drinking  deeply  of  the  cup 
-of  sorrow.  But  the  matter  is  more  dexterously 
managed  :  the  bishop  suffers,  and  the  people  are 
consoled, — by  proxy.  A  mode  of  suflfering,  we 
presume,  to  which  the  bishops  of  the  present  day, 
and  many  others  beside  them,  would  submit  with 
great  magnanimity.  How  they  would  relish  the 
consolation  thus  administered,  is  another  affair. 

Lastly,  to  the  authority  delegated  by  Christ  to 
Presbyters :  We  have  formerly  proved  that  every 
ordinary  power  left  in  the  church  is,  in  the  most 
direct  and  unequivocal  manner,  devolved  on  Pres- 
byters.* And  as  one  part  of  scripture  cannot 
be  repugnant  to  another,  it  is  impossible  that  any 
term  or  expression  here,  in  this  book  of  the  Re- 
velation, can  be  rightly  interpreted,  which  is  said 

*  See  page  p. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  153 

to  lodge  the  whole  power  of  government  and  dis- 
cipline in  a  bishop,  to  the  exclusion  of  presbyters. 

We  do  not  feel  conscious  of  any  arrogance  in 
supposing,  that  after  the  reader,  who  is  solicitous 
to  know  the  truth,  shall  carefully  have  examined 
and  compared  the  reasonings  now  submitted  to 
him;  and  allowed  them  their  due  force  on  his 
mind,  he  will  coincide  with  us  in  opinion,  that  the 
"  angels"  and  "  stars"  in  the  context  before  us,  do 
NOT  signify  single  persons^  but  a  number  of  men  ; 
that  is,  are  emblems  of  a  collective  ministry,  and  not 
of  diocesan  bishops. 

"  Thus  endeth  the  second  lesson,"  which  is  con- 
cerning Cyprian's  "  absolute  demonstration"  that 
the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  of  Asia  were 
Episcopal  prelates. 

We  now  come  to  the  third  and  great  fact  of  the 
Hierarchy,  the  prelatical  character  of  Timothy 
and  Titus.  The  inquiry  consists  of  two  parts ; 
the  first,  concerning  their  ordination,  and  the  second, 
iheir  powers. 

Although  the  Episcopal  writers  argue  less  con- 
fidently from  the  first  of  these  topics  than  from 
the  second ;  yet  it  is  not  unimportant  to  their 
cause.  For  if  they  can  prove  that  ordination  to 
the  ministry  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  was  Epis- 
copal, in  their  sense  of  the  term ;  that  is,  that  an 
officer  whom  they  call  the  bishop,  had  the  sole 
power  of  ordination,  presbyters  being  permitted 
merely  to  express  their  consent — if  they  can  prove 

Vol.  III.  20 


1 54  Review. 

this,  it  will  be  hard  to  escape  from  the  conclusion, 
that  the  whole  government  of  the  church  was 
prelatical.  If  they  decline  much  reliance  upon 
it,  as  Dr.  Hobart  and  the  Layman  say  they  do,* 
their  shyness  must  be  imputed  to  some  other 
cause  than  its  insignificance  ;  for  they  are  not  in 
the  habit  of  declining  very  humble  aid  ;  and  our 
former  remarks  will  show  that,  though  well  sup- 
plied with  assertions,  they  have  no  evidence  to 
spare. 

The  following  texts  have  been  quoted  under 
the  present  head. 

For  Timothy. 

JVeglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given 
thee  hy prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
OF  the  Presbytery.     1  Tim.  iv.  14. 

Wherefore  I  put  thse  in  remembrance  that  thou  stir 
up  the  gift  of  God  ivhich  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting 
ON  OF  MY  pANDS.     2  Tim.  i.  6. 

For  Titus. 

For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou 
shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting  ;  and 
ordain  elders  in  every  city,  as  i  had  appointed  thee. 
Titus  i.  5. 

From  these  texts  one  thing  is  clear,  viz.  that 
both  Paul  and  the  Presbytery  imposed  hands  on 
Timothy.  But  several  questions  have  been  started 

*  CoUec.  p.  59,  note-  Latman,  No.  V.  p.  51. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  153 

about  the  rest.  Who  constituted  the  Presbytery  ? 
Why  were  hands  imposed  on  Timothy  ?     Was 
this  his  consecration  to  the  evangehcal  ministry  ? 
If  so,  what  share  had  the  apostle  in  the  transac- 
tion, and  what  the  presbytery  ?  The  high  church 
construction  is,  that  "  St.  Paul  ordained  Timothy 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  Presbytery.     By   the 
Presbytery  may  be  understood  a  number  of  Apos- 
tles who  laid  their  hands  on  Timothy,  since  the 
Apostles,  though  certainly  superiour  to  Presbyters, 
style  themselves  "  Elders,"  or  Presbyters.     The 
Greek  expositors  understood  the  passage  in  this 
sense  as  well  as  the  Greek  church,  both  ancient 
and  modern — since   in   the   ordinations  of  this 
church,  the  Presbyters  do  not  lay  on  their  hands 
with  the  Bishop.     Nor  was  it  the  custom  in  the 
Western   church  until  the  fourth  century.  ,  But 
allowing  that  by  the  Presbytery  is  meant  a  num- 
ber of  Presbyters,  it  is  evident,  from  a  compari- 
son of  the  two  texts,  that  the  Presbyters  imposed 
hands,  not  to  convey  authority,  but  merely  to  ex- 
press  approbation.     "  By   the    putting   on  of  my 
hands,"  "  ivith  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery."    In  the  church  of  England,  the  Pres- 
byters lay  on  their  hands  with  the  Bishops  in  or- 
dination, to  denote  their  consent:'^ 

As  our  business,  at  present,  is  not  with  ecclesi- 

*  HoBART's  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  25.  The  Greek  expositors 
to  whom  he  refers  in  the  margin,  are  Chrysostom  and  Theophy- 
lact.     Theophylact  has  copied    Chrysostom,   whose   words  are, 

ov  ntpt  npta$vTtpiav  (ptjctv  tvTavQa-  aWa  jrtpi  emaKoiruiv,  ov  yp  en  vptafivTtpol   ro» 


156  Review. 

astical  history,  but  with  the  interpretation  of 
scripture,  we  pass  over  the  allusion  to  the 
Greek  and  Western  churches.  "  The  evidence" 
that "  the  Presbyters  imposed  hands  not  to  convey 
authority^  but  merely  to  express  approbation,'''  is  ex- 
torted from  the  two  prepositions  "  6y"  and  "  with.''' 
"  By  my  hands,"  says  Paul :  therefore  he  alone 
ordained  Timothy.  "  With  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  says  he  again :  there- 
fore, the  Presbytery  merely  "  expressed  their  ap- 
probation.'''' 

In  support  of  this  "  evident"  difference  between 
the  agency  of  Paul  and  that  of  the  Presbytery  in 
the  ordination,  the  Layman  has  entertained  us 
with  some  rare  criticism  which  we  shall  not  be  so 
unjust  as  to  withhold  from  our  readers. 

"  It  is  known  to  every  Greek  scholar,  that  dia  signifies, 
emphatically,  the  cause  of  a  thing  ;  while  meta  denotes 
emphatically,    nearness   of    situation,    relation,    connexion, 

tviaKOTTov  tx^i^o'fovovv.  Chrys.  ad  he.  "  He,  the  apostle,  is  not  speak- 
ing here  of  Presbyters,  hut  of  Bishops  :  for  Presbyters  did  not 
ordain  a  Bishop.''''  The  eloquent  Patriarch  flounders  sadly.  He 
takes  for  granted,  that  Timothy  was  a  bishop  :  to  allow  that  a 
bishop  could  be  ordained  by  Presbyters,  would  demolish  the  whole 
fabrick  of  the  hierarchy.  Paul  had  used  an  ugly  word  for  their 
spiritual  mightinesses  ;  and  so,  to  make  short  work  with  him,  the 
golden-mouthed  preacher  flatly  contradicts  him.  It  was  a  •'  pres- 
bytery," said  the  apostle.  It  Avas  a  council  of  bishops,  replies 
Chrysostom.  Yet,  after  all,  neither  he  nor  Theophylact,  have 
interpreted  the  term  of  Apostles.  When  a  writer  quotes  authori- 
ties without  consulting  them,  he  should  be  wary,  and  be  extreme- 
ly cautious  in  mentioning  names.  Dr.  H.  was  probably  in  haste. 
Had  he  stuck  closer  to  Potter,  he  would  have  been  less  inaccurate. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  157 

agreement.     It  need  not  be  observed   that  words  are  used 
sometimes  more  loosely,   and  sometimes  more  strictly.     A 
term  is  often  introduced  in  a  sense  different  from  its  ongn.al 
and  primary  meaning.     The  two  words  dia  and  meta  are 
opposed  in   the   Epistles  of  Timothy.     Well,  then,  the  two 
words  being  opposed,  and  the  first,   as  every  Greek  scholar 
knows,  denoting,  emphatically,  the  cause  of  a  thmg  ;  the  lat- 
ter  conveying,  particularly,  the  idea  of  relation,    connexion, 
agreement,  it  follows,  obviously,  that  they  are  to  be  taken  in 
these  their  appropriate  senses.     Our  author  will  not  venture 
to  say  that  the  Greek  word  meta  is  as  appropriate  an  one  as 
dia  to  express  the  cause  of  a  thing.     He  will  not  so  far  ha- 
zard  his  reputation  as  a  scholar.     I  assert,  then,  that  dia  sig- 
nifies,  particularly,  the  cause  of  a  thing,  and  that  meta  is  the 
preposition  of  concurrence.     Nor  is  this  invalidated  by  the 
circumstance  of  meta  being  sometimes  used  as  dia  with  the 
genitive  case.     The  emphatical  distinction  between  the  two 
words  lies  m  the  first  denoting  a  cause,  the  other  concurrence. 
Why  does  St.  Paul   carefully  use  the  word  dia  in  the   one 
case   and  meta  in  the  other  1     Why  does  he  not  use  meta  in 
both  cases  1     It  is  to  be  recollected  too,  that  the  passages 
are    in  his  Epistles  to  Timothy,  relating  to  the  same  subject  ; 
and  of  course,  the  terms  must  be  regarded  as  contrasted  with 
one  another.     Surely  the  words  dia  and  meta,  as  opposed, 
signify,  the  first,   the  cause  of  a  thing  ;  the  last,   nearness, 
concurrence,  agreement.     This  is  familiar  to  every    Greek 
scholar,  and  1  assert  it  on  the  authority  of  the  best  lexicons 
of  the  language.     The  circumstance,  then,   of  the  Apostle 
usinc  a  word  in  relation  to  himself,  which  denotes  the  instru- 
mental  cause,   and  with  respect  to  the  Presbytery,  a  word 
which,  particularly  as  distinguished  from  dia,  expresses  agree- 
ment,  shows,  clearly,  that  the  authoritative  power  was  vested 
in  him,  and  that  the  act,  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery,  was 
an  act  of  mere  concurrence."* 

•  Layman,  No.  V-  Coll  p.  53,  54. 


158  Review. 

That  Presbytery  may  be  left  without  a  shadow 
of  support,  these  two  unhappy  prepositions,  {dia  &r 
fiera,)  (dia  and  metd)  by  and  with.^  are  doomed  to 
the  same  rack  on  which  Cyprian  had  formerly 
tortured  a  noun,  and  the  Layman  himself  both  a 
noun  and  a  verb,  into  witnesses  for  the  hierarchy.* 
It  being  presumed  that  the  imposition  of  hands 
relates  to  Timothy's  ordination,  the  "  presbytery," 
whose  act  it  was,  whether  composed  of  mere  Pres- 
byters, or  of  Prelates,  or  of  Apostles,  had  nothinor 
to  do  in  the  affair,  but  barely  to  express  their  con- 
sent ;  and  if  this  appear  dubious,  it  shall  be  sub- 
stantiated by  the  deposition  of  dia  and  meta. 

"  It  is  known,"  says  the  Layman,  "  to  every  Greek  scho- 
lar, that  dia'''  [by)  "  signifies,  emphatically,  the  cause  of  a 
thing  ;  while  meta''''  (with)  "  denotes,  emphatically,  nearness 
of  situation,  relation,  connexion,  agreement." 

We  do  not  wish  to  be  uncharitable,  but,  if  we 
must  judge  from  the  instances  of  vv'ords,  which,  in 
this  collection  have  been  unfortunate  enough  to 
undergo  his  critical  process,  it  is  very  hard  for  the 
Layman  to  tell  what  a  Greek  scholar  knows.  Scho- 
lars, hke  other  classes  of  men,  have  their  appropri- 
ate habits  of  speaking  and  acting:  And  when  one 
who  has  had  only  a  dining-room  acquaintance  with 
them,  affects  to  be  of  their  number,  his  awkward 
imitation  betrays  him  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
dialect  of  a  foreigner  distinguishes  him  from  a  na- 
tive, as  a  prime  minister  would  loose  the  reputa- 

•  See  p. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  159 

tion  of  a  statesman  by  relying  on  annual  registers,    . 
on  reviews,  or  the  gazettes,  for  his  great  political 
facts.  No  scholar  would  have  made  the  Layman's 
indefinite  appeal  to  "  the  best  lexicons  in  the  lan- 
guage," for  settling  the  meaning  of  a  disputed 
word.     He  would  have  produced  examples  from 
the  only  legitimate  authorities,  the  oWgma/ z^'n/m. 
How  the  Layman  would  fare  in  such  hands,  we 
shall  not  conjecture  :  but  we  are  sure  that  a  very 
little  acquaintance  with  Greek   is   sufficient  to 
pluck  away  the  feathers  with  which  poor  dia  and 
meta  have  been  made  to  adorn  his  plume. 

"  Dia  signifies,  emphatically,  the  cause  of  a  thing." 

For  example : 

//  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  (dia)  the  eye 
of  a  needle,  than,  Sfc.     Math.  xix.  24. 

Jesus  went— THROVGH  (dia)  the  cornfiekls.     Mark 

ii.  23. 

Jnd  again  he  entered  into  Capernaum,  after  (dia) 

some  days.     Mark  ii.  L 

Now  what  "  cause"  does  the  preposition  dia  ex- 
press here.  Does  it  '•  emphatically,"  as  the  Lay- 
man speaks,  "  signify  the  cause''  of  the  needle's 
eye  ?  of  the  cornfields  ?  or  of  the  days  }  or  the 
^^  cause''  of  the  camel's  going  through  the  first?  of 
our  Lord's  going  through  the  second?  or  of  his 
spending  the  third  before  he  went  into  Caper- 
naum ?  When  the  Layman  shall  have  found  his 
emphatical  signification  o^  dia  in  these  instances, 
he  may  call  upon  us  for  a  hundred  more 


1 60  Review. 

The  fact  is,  that  this  preposition  tiever  signifies 
the  cause  of  a  thing  :  whatever  the  "  Lexicons" 
say.  It  expresses  the  idea  of  transition  or  trans- 
mission^ and  has  no  Enghsh  word  to  correspond 
with  it  so  well  as  the  preposition  "  through^ 
Whether  it  is  accompanied  with  the  notion  of  a 
cause  or  not,  must  be  determined  by  the  phrase 
where  it  occurs. 

But  in  spoiling  the  Layman's  criticism,  we  ac- 
knowledge that  we  have  not  overthrown  his  argu- 
ment. For  if  t\\Q  imposition  of  Paul's  hands  was 
the  medium  through  which,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
Presbytery,  he  alone  conveyed  the  ministerial  com- 
mission to  Timothy;  and  e/ this  act  of  his  formed 
a  precedent  for  all  subsequent  ordinations,  the 
Layman  has  won,  and  we  own  Timothy  to  have 
been  episcopally  ordained  :  Whether  a  bishop  or 
not,  would  still  remain  a  question.  These  2/5, 
however,  seem  to  be  rather  anti-episcopal. 

From  the  words  of  Paul,  we  should  conclude, 
that  whoever  or  whatever  else  might  have  been 
concerned  in  this  august  transaction,  a  material 
part  of  it  belonged  to  the  Presbytery.  Neglect  not 
the  gift  that  is  in  thee.,  which  was  given  thee  by  pro- 
phecy., WITH  THE   LAYING   ON    OF    THE   HANDS  OF  THE 

Presbytery.  A  plain  reader  would  certainly  say, 
that  Timothy  was  Presbyterially  ordained :  as  he 
could  not  well  imagine  that  a  Presbyterian  him- 
self would  have  chosen  to  word  the  account  dif- 
ferently. But  this  would  be  the  errour  of  one  who 


Essays  on  Episcojmcy.  161 

had  never  heard  what  marvels  can  be  effected  by 
a  httle  critical  legerdemain  operating  upon  Greek 
prepositions.  O  no  !  This  is  the  very  text  which 
proves  that  his  ordination  was  not  presbyterial ! 
Astonishing  !  1  see  Timothy  bowing  before  the 
Presbytery.  I  see  them  imposing  hands  upon  his 
head  :  I  am  told  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  the  gift 
which  was  in  him  was  given  him  with  the  laying 
on  of  their  hands :  and  yet  they  did  not  ordain 
him!  "  No!"  Had  no  share  in  his  ordination! 
"  No !"  Gave  him  no  gift  at  all !  "  No  !"  Verily 
this  Layman  is  unceremonious  in  his  behaviour  to 
words ;  for  he  will  either  allow  them  no  meaning 
at  all ;  or  else,  as  it  may  suit  him,  they  shall  mean 
in  the  mouth  of  an  apostle,  the  contrary  to  what 
they  ever  have  meant  or  ever  shall  mean,  in  the 
mouth  of  any  other  man  !  No  ordination !  JYo 
communication  by  the  Presbytery !  Why,  that  old 
Jesuit,  who  has  foisted  the  Virgin  Mary  into  every 
chapter  of  the  book  of  Proverbs,*  could  not  him- 
self be  more  fantastical !  How,  in  the  name  of 
common  sense,  is  the  Presbytery  disposed  of.'* 
Softly,  zealous  friend,  softly.  Thou  shalt  see. 
Here  comes  the  magician :  his  wand  shall  touch 
the  little  four-lettered  vocabule,  "  with,"  and  lo, 
the  whole  Presbytery  will  evanish,  and  leave  only 
a  single  ordaining  hand  ! 

"  The  circumstance  of  the  apostle  using  a  word  in  relation 
to  himself,  which  denotes  the  instrumental  cause,"  viz.  dia  ; 

*  Vid.  F.  Q.  De  Salazar,  erpositio  in  Proverbia. 
Vol.  III.  21 


1 62  Review, 

"and  with  respect  to  the  Presbytery,  a  word  which,  particularly 
as  distinguished  from  dia,  expresses  agreement,"  viz.  meta ; 
"  shows,  clearly,  that  the  authoritative  power  was  vested  in 
him  ;  and  that  the  act,  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery,  was  an 
act  of  mere  concurrence." 

So  they  wrap  it  up !  Let  us  try  to  unwrap  it  a 
little,  and  see  whether  the  bundle  will  bear  exami- 
nation. So  far  as  we  can  perceive,  there  is  no- 
thing here  but  a  play  upon  words  ;  and  the  argu- 
ment consists  in  the  jingle.  The  interpretation  of 
the  word  used  by  the  apostle,  is  bent  and  twisted 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  induce  the  unlettered 
reader  to  suppose  that  it  expresses  the  assent  of 
one  person  to  the  act  of  another.  We  do  not  ob- 
ject to  the  Layman's  translating  meta  by  "  con- 
currence ;"  for  according  to  our  great  English 
Lexicographer,  "  concurrence"  signilQes  "  union, 
association,  conjunction :"  "  Agreement ;  act  of 
joining  in  any  design  or  measure" — "  combination 
of  many  agents  or  circumstances,"  &c. ;  but 
popular  and  colloquial  usage  often  employs  it 
when  nothing  more  is  intended  than  an  approbation 
of  an  opinion  or  a  measure.  It  is  in  this  sense 
that  the  Layman  uses  it;  and  it  is  here  that  his 
criticism  puts  a  fraud  upon  his  reader.  We  do  not 
say  that  the  fraud  is  intentional ;  before  we  can 
prove  this,  we  must  prove  that  he  understands 
Greek ;  which  we  humbly  beg  leave  to  decline. 
But  we  shall  freely  give  him  the  "  eight  or  ten 
years"  which  his  friend  has  craved,*  in  order  to 

*  Hobakt's  .4;7o/ogy,  p.250. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  163 

support  his  construction  of  meta  by  the  proper 
authorities  ;  and  he  shall  have  "  the  best  lexicons 
of  the  language"  into  the  bargain. 

But  as  we  do  not  ask  for  credence  to  our  bare 
assertion,  we  shall  subject  the  Layman's  distinc- 
tion between  dia  and  meta  to  the  test  of  fact. 

"  It  is  to  be  recollected,"  says  he,  "  that  the  passages  are  in 
his"  (Paul's)  "  epistles  to  Timothy,  relating  to  the  same  sub- 
ject ;  and  of  course,  the  terms,"  (viz.  dia  and  meta,)  "  must 
be  regarded  as  contrasted  with  one  another." 

Be  it  SO.  1  open  my  New  Testament  and  read, 
that  "  many  signs  and  wonders  were  done  by  (dia)  the 
apostles^*  Proceeding  in  the  narrative,  1  read 
afterwards  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  rehearsed  all 
things  that  God  had  done  with  (meta)  them.-f  Now. 
the  Layman  being  judge,  as  "  the  passages  relate 
to  the  same  subject,"  viz.  the  miraculous  works 
which  God  enabled  his  servants  to  perform,  and 
the  success  with  which  he  crowned  their  ministry, 
"  the  terms"  dia  and  7n€ta  "  must  be  regarded  as 
contrasted  with  one  another.  The  circumstance, 
then,  of  the  historian  using  a  word  in  relation  to 
the  apostles  in  general,  which  denotes  the  instru- 
mental cause ;  and  with  respect  to  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas, a  word  which,  particularly  as  distinguished 
from  dia,  expresses  agreement,  shows  clearly,  that 
the  authoritative  power  was  vested  in  the  former, 
and  that  the  act,  on  the  part  of  the  latter,  was  an 

*  Act  ii.  43.  nrokXa  ts  TSgara  xia  tfyj/xeia  AIA  twv  a^otfToXuv 
f  bta.  h  d;og  f'jroi>](f<,-  MET'  axjtux Act.  xv,  4. 


164  Review. 

act  of  mere  concurrence."  In  fewer  words,  when 
Peter,  James,  &c.  wrought  miracles,  they  did  it  in 
virtue  of  an  authoritative  power ;  and  when  Paul 
and  Barnabas  wrought  miracles,  they  had  no  au- 
thoritative or  instrumental  agency,  but  merely  ex- 
pressed their  approbation  of  what  God  did  without 
them ;  although  the  historian  has  positively  assert 
ed  that  he  did  it  with  them.  All  this  from  the  dif- 
ference between  dia  and  meta  ! 

Should  the  Layman  by  any  means  escape  from 
this  difficulty,  it  will  be  to  fall  into  another  still 
greater.  Before  he  ventured  upon  the  criticism 
now  under  review,  he  ought  to  have  read,  in  the 
original,  the  verse  which  he  has  undertaken  to 
criticise.  There  he  would  have  found  his  dia  and 
meta  in  the  same  proposition,  and  separated  only 
by  a  single  word.  The  gift^  says  Paul  to  Timothy, 
which  was  given  thee  by  {^vd^^  prophecy.,  with  (meta) 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.*  That 
the  terms  relate  to  the  same  subject,  is  indisputa- 
ble ;  and  of  course,  says  the  Layman,  they  are 
"contrasted  with.one  another.  The  circumstance, 
then,"  proceeds  he,  "  of  the  apostle  using  a  word 
in  relation  to  prophecy,  which  denotes  the  instru- 
mental cause ;  and,  with  respect  to  the  Presby- 
tery, a  word  which,  particularly  as  distinguished 
from  dia.,  expresses  agreement,  shows,  clearly, 
that  the  authoritative  power  was  vested  in  the 

*lTim.  iv.  14. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  165 

prophecy ;  and  that  the  act,  on  the  part  of  the 
Presbytery,  was  an  act  of  mere  concurrence." 

The  result  of  the  Layman's  criticism  is,  that 
Timothy  had  tivo  ordinations,  by  tivo  authoritative 
powers,  viz.  the  prophecy,  and  the  apostle  Paul ; 
and  two  concurrences  of  the  Presbytery,  viz.  one 
with  prophecy,  and  one  with  the  apostle.  We 
cannot  deny  that  he  was  well  ordained ! 

From  words  let  us  go  to  things,  and  see  what 
the  Episcopal  argument  will  gain  by  the  exchange. 
The  imposition  of  hands  on  the  part  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, was  an  act,  it  is  said,  of  "  mere  concur- 
rence ;"  designed  to  express  approbation,  and  not 
at  all  to  convey  the  ministerial  office.* 

This  assertion  is  not  only  without  proof,  but  is 
directly  in  the  face  of  all  the  proof  which  the  na- 
ture of  the  case  admits. 

1.  By  what  rule  of  reasoning  is  the  very  same  act., 
viz.  imposition  of  hands,  performed  at  the  same 
time,  in  relation  to  the  saine  subject,  considered  as 
expressing  the  communication  of  authority  by  one 
of  the  persons  engaged,  and  only  as  expressing 
approbation  by  all  the  rest  ?  When  certain  distinc- 
tions have  taken  place,  it  is  easy  to  invent  other 
distinctions  to  justify  them.  But  is  it  credible  ? 
does  it  belong  to  the  nature  of  significant  rites, 
that  a  rite  signifying  the  conferring  of  power  should 
be  employed  by  a  number  of  persons  in  a  concnr- 

*  HoBART  and  the  Layman,  as  above. 


166  R 


evieiv. 


rent  act,  and  yet,  with  regard  to  all  but  one  of  them, 
not  signify  the  conferring  power  at  all  ? 

2.  The  advocates  of  prelacy  are  challenged  to 
produce  from  the  scriptures,  or  other  authentic 
records  of  the  apostolic  and  preceding  ages,  proof 
that  imposition  of  hands  was  used  to  signify  mere 
assent  or  approbation.  To  say  that  it  might  so 
signify,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  The  point  to 
be  determined  is,  not  what  it  might,  but  what  it 
did,  signify.  If,  in  every  other  case,  imposition  of 
hands  expressed  authoritative  communication,  it 
must  have  done  so  in  the  ordination  of  Timothy  ; 
and  to  maintain  that  it  did  not,  is  to  beg  the  ques- 
tion. The  Episcopal  construction  violates  the 
plainest  meaning  both  of  words  and  of  actions. 
The  Presbyterian  construction  is  in  perfect  coin- 
cidence with  both.  Paul  says  that  the  gift  in 
Timothy  was  given  to  him  bi/  prophecy,  with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.  It  is  agreed 
that  prophecy,  or  prophecies  which  went  before 
on  Timothy,  designated  him  as  a  fit  person  for  the 
ministry  :  but  did  not  invest  him  with  office — did 
not  give  him  the  gift.  Had  there  been  nothing 
else  but  the  prophecy,  he  would  have  had  no  com- 
mission. It  was  necessary  that  the  imposition  of 
the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  should  concur  with  the 
prophetical  designation,  or  Timothy  had  remained 
a  layman.  The  Presbytery  did  thus  concur;  they 
did  lay  their  hands  on  Timothy,  and  he  received 
his  office.     Now  as  the  prophecy  made  no  part  of 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  167 

his  ordination ;  it  follows,  that  he  was  ordained  by 
the  Presbytery.  If  the  gift  which  was  in  him  by 
the  imposition  of  Paul's  hands,  was  his  ministerial 
commission,  that  apostle  had  no  share  in  it  which 
was  not  common  to  every  member  of  the  Presby- 
tery ;  or  else  his  declaration,  that  Timothy  was 
ordained  by  prophecy  with  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery,  would  not  be  true.  Nor 
is  there  any  thing  in  his  expression  which  might 
not  be  used  by  every  one  of  his  colleagues,  and 
with  peculiar  propriety  by  himself,  if,  as  it  is  not 
improbable,  he  presided  at  Timothy's  ordination. 
To  exhibit  this  subject  in  another  light,  we  pro- 
pose a  few  questions  which  some  of  the  advocates 
for  prelacy  would  do  no  disservice  to  their  cause 
by  answering  in  such  a  manner  as  to  remove  the 
scruples  they  must  naturally  occasion. 

1.  Did  Paul  alone  ordain  Timothy?  or  was  his 
ordination  the  joint  act  of  the  Presbytery  }  If  the 
latter,  we  have  a  complete  scriptural  example  of 
Presbyterial  ordination.  If  the  former,  so  that  the 
Presbytery,  by  the  imposition  of  their  hands,  mere- 
ly testified  their  assent^  then, 

2.  Were  the  persons  who  thus  imposed  hands  on 
Timothy  simple  Presbyters,  or  were  they  apostles 
or  prelates  .^  If  the  latter,  then, 

3.  How  came  Paul  to  appropriate  to  himself  a 
power  which  belonged  to  every  one  of  them  in  as 
full  right  as  it  could  possibly  belong  to  him  .'*  How 
came  they  to  surrender  this  their  power  into  the 


1 68  Review. 

hands  of  an  individual?  And  how  could  the  impo- 
sition of  Paul's  hands  bestow  the  ministerial  gift, 
while  others,  possessing  the  same  authority^  did,  by 
the  very  same  act^  at  the  very  same  /me,  merely 
declare  their  assent? 

If  the  former,  i.  e.  if  those  who  concurred  with 
Paul  in  the  imposition  of  hands  were  simple  Pres- 
byters, then, 

4.  What  ordination  did  Timothy  receive  ?  Was 
he  ordained  a  Presbyter  or  a  Prelate  ?  If  the  for- 
mer, his  Episcopal  character,  in  so  far  as  it  de- 
pends upon  his  ordination,  is  swept  away ;  and 
we  have  not  a  single  instance  of  the  consecration 
of  a  prelate  in  all  the  New  Testament.  If  the  lat- 
ter, then, 

5.  How  came  simple  Presbyters  to  impose  hands 
upon  the  head  of  a  Bishop  at  his  consecration  ? 
Or  supposing  these  Presbyters  to  have  been  Pre- 
lates, where  was  Timothy's  commission  ?  By  the 
terms  of  the  argument,  he  was  ordained  by  Paul 
alone;  but  according  to  the  Episcopal  order, 
which  we  are  assured  is  the  apostolical  order,  two 
or  three  bishops  are  necessary  to  ordain  a  bishop.* 

*   Eirifl-KOTrof    vtto    tmaKOTiiiv    ■xttQorovuaQtii  AYO  tj  TPIilN.       Can-  ApoS. 

I.  Apud  PP.  App.  Tom.  I.  p.  442.  Ed.  Clerici.  On  this  canon, 
Bishop  Beveridge  thus  comments.  "  This  right,  therefore,  used 
by  the  apostles  themselves,  and  presci-ibed,  by  apostolical  men, 
our  church,"  meaning  the  church  of  England,  "  most  religiously 
observes  ;  and,  as  far  as  possible,  it  ought,  beyond  all  doubt,  to 
be  observed  every  where.  But  when  necessity,  that  most  unre- 
lenting mistress,  shall  require  it,  the  rigour  of  the  canon  may  be 
so  far  relaxed,  as  that  a  bishop  may  be  ordained  by  two."  Ibidp.  457. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  169 

And  so  poor  Timothy  was  not  ordained  a  bishop 
at  all.  If,  in  order  to  give  him  his  mitre,  we  make 
the  Presbytery  to  consist  of  Apostles,  or  men  of 
apostolic  rank,  we  not  only  prostrate  the  Lay- 
man's famous  criticism  about  dia  and  ?neta,  but 
are  left  without  the  vestige  of  an  ordination  by  a 
prelate  alone,  in  so  far  as  that  point  is  to  be  made 
out  by  the  ordination  of  Timothy  *  There  re- 
mains nothing  but  an  example  of  ordination  by 
a  Presbytery,  which  is  all  that  the  Presbyterians 
desire. 

We  cannot  dismiss  this  point  without  remark- 
ing how  our  prelatical  friends  shift  their  ground. 

Two  things  are  to  be  proved  :  that  Timothy 
was  a  Bishop ;  and,  that  a  Bishop  alone  ordains. 
For  the/r5/,  according  to  our  Episcopal  brethren, 
the  Presbytery,  who  joined  with  Payl  in  laying 
hands  on  Timothy,  were  bona  fide  prelates,  who, 
jointly  with  the  apostle,  imparted  the  Episcopal 
dignity  ;  and  so  Timothy  is  a  bishop  without  any 
more  ado.  But  for  the  second,  the  Presbytery  were 
not  prelates ;  or  if  they  were,  they  did  not  ordain 
jointly  with  the  apostle;  they  merely  expressed 
their  approbation. 

"  The  legs  of  the  lame  are  not  equal."  If  we 
adopt  the  first,  we  lose  the  proof  of  ordination  by 
a  Bishop  alone.  If  the  second,  we  lose  the  ordina- 
tion of  bishop  Timothy.     The  latter  makes  dia 

*  Ordination  performed  by  Titus  shall  hereafter  be  considered. 
Vol.  III.  22 


1 70  Revieiv. 

show  "  clearly,  that  the  authoritative  power  was 
vested  in  Paul,"  and  meta^  that  "  the  act  on  the 
part  of  the  Presbytery,  was  an  act  of  mere  con- 
currence." The  former  shows,  with  equal  clear- 
ness, that  the  authoritative  power  was  not  vested 
in  Paul  alone ;  that  the  act  on  the  part  of  the 
Presbytery,  was  not  an  act  of  mere  concurrence ; 
and  that  there  is  nothing  in  dia  and  meta  to  esta- 
blish the  contrary.  When  a  circle  and  a  square 
coincide,  then  shall  these  two  arguments  for  pre- 
lacy be  consistent  with  each  other. 

So  much  for  Timothy's  ordination.  Now  for 
that  of  Titus.  Him,  too,  the  Layman  has  ordain- 
ed Episcopally. 

"  To  Titus  the  apostle  says,  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  want- 
ing, and  ordain  elders  in  every  city  as  I  had  appointed  thee. 
Here  let  it  be  observed,  in  passing  along,  that  Titus  is  spoken 
of  as  having  been  ordained  by  the  apostle  :  As  I  had  appoint- 
ed thee.  Nothing  is  said  of  the  Presbytery  in  this  case.  Paul 
appointed  Titus  to  his  office.  And  this  is  a  conclusive  cir- 
cumstance for  believing  that  the  case  was  the  same  in  relation 
to  Timothy,  as  it  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  were 
commissioned  in  different  ways."* 

We  agree  that  the  office  of  Timothy  and  Titus 
was  the  same,  and  that  they  were  commissioned 
in  the  same  manner.  But  the  Layman  has  over- 
shot his  mark.  For,  as  we  have  already  stated, 
the  advocates  for  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy 
maintain  that  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  by  two  or 

*    Layman,  No.  V.  CoUec.  p.  56. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  171 

three  others,  is  an  apostolical  institution :  and  that 
even  in  cases  of  the  hardest  necessity.,  two  bishops 
are  essential  to  the  ordination  of  a  third.  One  of 
two  consequences  is  inevitable;  either  that  Paul 
exercised,  on  this  occasion,  his  extraordinary 
power,  and  so  has  set  no  precedent;  or,  if  he  set 
a  precedent  for  ordination  by  a  single  prelate,  Ti- 
tus was  no  more  than  a  presbyter,  and  could  not 
by  himself,  ordain  other  presbyters.  All  this  rests 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  expression,  as  I  had 
appointed  thee.,  refers  to  the  ordination  of  Titus. 
Another  blunder.  There  is  not  a  syllable  about 
his  ordination  in  the  text.  It  pre-supposes  his 
authority,  and  relates  solely  to  the  directions  which 
the  apostle  had  given  him  for  the  application  of  it. 
The  word  rendered,  "  appointed.,''''  frequently  oc- 
curs in  the  New  Testament,  but  always,  with  the 
construction  before  us,  in  the  sense  of  prescribing, 
enjoining,  commanding :  and  never  in  the  sense 
of  setting  apart  to  an  office — Thus, 

He  COMMANDED  ((^f£Ta^«To)  a  centuriou  to  keep 
Paul.  Acts  xxiv.  23.  Surely  FeHx  did  not  then 
give  the  centurion  his  military  commission. 

As  God  hath  distributed  to  every  man  ;  as  the  Lord 
hath  called  every  one.,  so  let  him  walk  :  and  so  ordain 
I,  {diataooo^ai)  direct,  enjoin  I,  in  all  chvrches. 
1  Cor.  vii.  17. 

In  the  very  same  manner  does  Paul  speak  to 
Titus. 

As  I  had  appointed  (dwTa^afi.i]v)  instructed,  en- 
joined, thee. 


172  Revi 


ew. 


The  word  which  expresses  mvestiture  with  of- 
fice is  quite  different,  as  this  very  verse  shows; 
and  the  author  of  Miscellanies*  had  remarked: 
but  this  circumstance,  Dr.  Hobart,  though  not 
sparing  of  his  notes,  passes  over  in  profound 
silence. 

We  come,  at  length,  to  the  decisive  argument 
for  diocesan  Episcopacy — \\iQ  powers  exercised  by 
Timothy  and  Titus.  This  is  to  silence  the  last 
battery  of  the  Presbyterians,  and  reduce  them  to 
the  humiliating  necessity  of  surrendering  at  discre- 
tion !  Really  one  would  imagine,  that  the  powers 
of  Timothy  and  Titus  are  a  new  discovery :  and 
that  the  epistles  written  to  them  by  Paul,  had  been 
in  the  custody  of  the  prelates  alone  as  containing 
the  precious  charter  of  their  rights.  But  the  world 
may  believe  us,  upon  our  word  of  verity,  that  we 
have  actually  read  those  epistles  long  ago;  and 
that  the  demonstration,  said  to  be  therein  con- 
tained, of  the  apostolical  institution  of  the  "  sacred 
regiment  of  Bishops,"  has  been  questioned,  yea 
and,  in  our  judgment,  confuted  some  hand- 
ful of  years  before  our  grandfathers  were  born. 
However,  Ecce  iterum  Crispinus  !  Here  it  is  again. 
We  shall  give  unto  thee,  reader,  as  Cyprian  and 
the  Layman  have  given  it  unto  us.  But  we  en- 
treat thy  patience  to  some  preliminary  matter. 

We  think  that  when  the  Episcopal  writers  ap- 

•  Clemens,  No.  1.  Collec  p. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  173 

peal,  with  so  much  confidence,  to  the  powers  ex- 
ercised by  Timothy,  they  ought  also  to  have 
agreed  as  to  the  ojice  and  rank  of  that  eminent 
man.  Yet  it  is  a  disputed  point  among  them,  at 
this  hour,  whether  he  was  simply  Bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus,  having  jurisdiction  over  his  presbyters;  or 
an  archbishop,  having  bishops  under  him ;  or  the 
lord  primate  of  Asia,  above  them  all.  If  you  ask 
the  advocates  of  these  several  opinions,  what  was 
precisely  his  authority  ?  some  cry  one  thing,  and 
some  another  :  for  the  assembly  is  confused ;  and 
their  voices  unite  only  in  this.  Great  is  Timothy 
of  the  Ephesians  !  We  cannot  refrain  from  trans- 
cribing a  few  remarks  of  the  powerful  and  elo- 
quent Jean  Daille. 

"  Here,"  we  translate  his  own  words,  "  Here 
the  hierarchs,  having  their  imagination  full  of  their 
grand  prelatures,  of  their  bishoprics,  their  arch- 
bishoprics, and  their  primacies,  do  not  fail  to 
dream  of  one  in  these  words  of  the  Apostle.  That 
he  besought  Timothy  to  abide  still  at  Ephesiis,  signi- 
fies, if  you  believe  them,  that  he  made  Timothy 
bishop  of  the  church  of  Ephesus ;  and  not  only 
that,  but  even  Metropolitan,  or  archbishop  of  the 
province ;  and  even  primate  of  all  Asia.  You  see 
how  ingenious  is  the  passion  for  the  crosier  and 
the  mitre  ;  being  able,  in  so  few  and  simple  words, 
to  detect  such  great  mysteries  !  For  where  is  the 
man,  who,  in  the  use  of  his  natural  understand- 
ing without  being  heated  by  a  previous  attach- 


174  Revieiv. 

ment,  could  ever  have  found  so  many  mitres — that 
of  a  Bishop,  that  of  an  Arch-bishop,  and  that  of 
a  Primate,  in  these  two  words,  Paul  besovght  Ti- 
mothy to  abide  still  at  Ephesus  ?  Who,  without  the 
help  of  some  extraordinary  passion,  could  ever 
have  made  so  charming  and  so  rare  a  discovery  ?* 
and  imagine  that  to  beseech  a  man  to  stay  in  a 
city,  means,  to  establish  him  bishop  of  that  city, 
Archbishop  of  the  province,  and  primate  of  all 
the  country  ?  In  very  deed,  the  cause  of  these 
gentlemen  of  the  hierarchy  must  be  reduced  to 
an  evil  plight,t  since  they  are  constrained  to  re- 
sort to  such  pitiful  proofs. "J 

Our  readers  will  hardly  blame  DailU  for  applying 
the  epithet  "  pitiful,"  to  the  argument  of  the  hier- 
archy for  Timothy's  Episcopate,  when  they  see 
that  her  ablest  and  most  resolute  champions  are  at 
irreconcileable  variance  with  each  other  on  this 
very  point :  some  maintaining  it  as  perfectly  con- 

*  Deviner  une  chose  si  belle  &  si  rare  ? — 
f  A  de  mauvais  termes. 

X  Daille'  Exposition  de  la  premiere  epitre  de  VApotre  Saint 
Paul  d  Timothee  ;  en  48  sermons  prononcfs  d  Charenton.  Serm. 
I.  p.  22,  23.  a  Geneve  1661.  12mo. 

This  is  that  identical  Monsieur  Daillf/  •whom  Mr.  Bingham 
and,  from  him,  Dr.  Hobart  have  represented  as  friendly  to  Epis- 
copacy.* This  is  that  Jean  Daille'  !  The  prelatical  commenta- 
tors have  played  tricks  with  the  French  preacher ;  which,  if  we 
feel  in  a  humour  for  it,  we  may  one  of  these  days  expose. 

*  Hobart's  Apology,  p.  94,  compared  with  p.  99.  Bingham's  Christian 
ArUiquUiet.     Vol.  H.  p.  799. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  175 

elusive  ;  others  rejecting  it  as  weak  and  frivolous. 
The  mere  fact  of  this  variance  is  a  strong  pre- 
sumption against  the  former,  and  in  favour  of  the 
latter.  For  although  vigorous,  cultivated,  and 
candid  minds  may  be  so  far  warped  by  their 
wishes  as  to  lay  more  stress  upon  an  argument 
for  them  than  it  deserves  ;  yet  it  is  hardly  to  be 
supposed  that  such  minds  will  attribute  to  an 
argument  which,  if  sound,  secures  them  the  victo- 
ry, much  less  importance  than  it  possesses.  If, 
then,  there  are  to  be  found  among  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy,  men  second  to  none  of  them  in 
learning,  force,  and  sagacity,  Vv^ho  fairly  give  up 
the  plea  from  Timothy  and  Titus,  the  conclusion 
is,  that  their  concession  is  extorted  against  their 
prejudices  and  interest. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  collision ,  which  takes 
place,  on  this  subject,  between  the  most  zealous 
supporters  of  prelacy,  we  transcribe  a  part  of  the 
seventh  section  of  the  Appendix  to  Ayton's  Origi- 
nal Constitution  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  has  not 
been  in  our  power  to  compare  all  his  quotations 
with  the  authors,  but  we  have  examined  a  number 
and  they  are  correct. 

"  The  chief  plea  and  argument  of  the  EpiscopaHans  is  taken 
from  Timothy  and  Titus.  But  liowever  much  this  is  boasted 
of  by  some,  as  a  conclusive  proof  for  a  diocesan  form  of  church 
government,  and  superior  power  of  Bishops  to  that  of  Presby- 
ters ;  yet  there  is  nothing  adduced  by  them  that  is  more  vio- 
lently opposed  by  others  of  them,  and  in  which  they  are  more 
egregiously   divided.     For  some  of  them  pretend,  that   the 


176  Review. 

Apostle,  in  his  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  uses  the  terms 
Bishop  and  Presbyter  promiscuously,  only  to  express  such 
officers  as  are  now  called  Presbyters.  Of  this  opinion  I  take 
Bishop  Hoadley  to  be,  Dr.  Whitby,  Mr.  Dodwell,  and  many 
others  might  be  named. 

"  But  how  contradictory  to  this  is  the  judgment  of  Bishop 
Pearson,  Vindicia.  Lib.  2.  Cap.  13.  Bishop  Taylor,  Episc. 
assert.  P.  85.  Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  History  of  the  Right  of 
Princes,  Prcfac.  p.  15.  and  p.  4,  5.  of  the  Book  :  and  Dr. 
Hammond,  in  a  variety  of  places.  I  say,  how  contradictory 
are  these  sentiments  of  those  prelates  to  this  above  named  1 
seeing  they  hold,  that  all  those  whom  they  were  to  ordain  were 
proper  bishops,  nay,  Di".  Hammond's  opinion  is,  that  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  were  Archbishops,  and  had  their  suffragans 
under  them  ;  and  with  him  bishop  Bull  seems  to  agree,  when 
he  calls  Timothy  Archbishop,  Serin,  on  2  Tim.  iv.  13.  And 
to  these  I  could  add  others  of  the  same  mind.  But,  then  as 
Dr.  Hammond  reckoned,  that  the  Apostles  ordained  no  mere 
Presbyters  at  the  first,  but  only  Bishops,  Annot.  on  Acts  xi.  6, 
14.  so  Dodwell,  Parcenes,  p.  54.  p.  13.  and  p.  102.  p.  33. 
must  certainly  contradict  him  in  this,  when  he  maintains,  that 
the  Apostles  at  the  first  ordained  no  Bishops,  but  simple  Pres- 
byters only  ;  and  that  there  is  no  mention  of  Episcopal 
government  in  the  New  Testament,  and  that  it  was  not  esta- 
blished till  Anno  106.  But  then,  according  to  both  these  Doc- 
tors, there  is  one  office  in  the  church  without  scripture  war- 
rant— Presbyters,  according  to  Dr.  Hammond  ;  and  Bishops, 
according  to  Mr.  Dodwell.  But  how  will  they  answer  to  what 
is  advanced  by  Bishop  Burnet,  which  equally  contradicts  them 
both,  Vi7idic.  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  355.  That  with- 
out Scripture  ivarrants  no  netv  office  may  be  instituted  ?  Besides 
Dr.  Hammond's  conceit  against  Presbyters  not  being  institu- 
ted in  the  New  Testament,  is  opposed  with  all  freedom  by 
Mr.  Maurice,  Defens.  p.  27.  and  by  Bishop  Hoadley,  Brief 
Defence,  p.  113.     Is  it  possible   to  behold   such  wrangling, 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  \11l 

without  being  affected  with  a  mixture  both  of  indignation  and 
compassion  ?  Is  it  not  matter  of  indignation,  that  men  of 
judgment  and  learning  should  have  such  a  fondness  to  main- 
tain a  cause  that  is  so  precarious,  as  to  drive  them  into  so 
many  schemes  to  defend  it,  and  every  one  of  them  contradic- 
tory to  one  another  1  And  can  it  miss  to  beget  compassion  in 
the  breast  of  every  sincere  Christian,  that  men  of  abilities 
should  bestow  so  much  time  to  perplex  themselves  and  others, 
when  their  labours,  rightly  employed,  might  prove  much  more 
beneficial  to  the  Protestant  world  1 

"  But  that  we  may  give  the  world  a  view,  how  inconclusive 
all  these  schemes  and  models  are,  which  are  taken  from  Ti- 
mothy and  Titus,  I  shall  give  some  account  of  the  minds  of  the 
Episcopalians  at  some  length,  who,  when  adduced,  will  leave 
no  room  for  the  Presbyterians  to  be  in  any  perplexity  in  tlie 
defence  of  their  establishment.  The  first  I  shall  bring  on  the 
stage  is  the  famous  Willet,  Si/nops.  Papism,  p,  236.  '  It  is 
most  like  Timothy  had  the  place  and  calling  of  an  evangelist: 
and  the  calling  of  evangelists  and  bishops,  which  were  pastors, 
was  divers.'  To  him  let  us  join  the  learned  Stillingflect,  who 
says,  Ii-cnic.  p.  340.  '  Such  were  the  evangelists,  who  were 
sent  sometimes  into  this  country  to  put  the  church  in  order 
there,  sometimes  into  another ;  but  wherever  they  were,  they 
acted  as  evangelists,  and  not  as  fixed  officers.  And  such  were 
Timothy  and  Titus,  notwithstanding  all  the  opposition  made 
against  it,  as  will  appear  to  any  who  will  take  an  impartial 
survey  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides,'  &,c.  Nay,  the  Jesuit 
Salmeron,  is  ashamed  of  this  argument,  for  he  says,  Disput.  1. 
on  I  Tim.  '  It  is  doubtful  if  Timothy  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus  : 
for  though  he  preached  and  ordained  some  to  the  ministry 
there,  it  follows  not  that  he  was  the  Bishop  of  that  place  ;  for 
Paul  preached  also  there  above  two  years,  and  absolved  the 
penitents,  and  yet  was  not  Bishop.  Add  that  now  and  then 
the  apostle  called  him  away  unto  himself,  and  sent  him  from 
Rome  to  the  Hebrews  with  his  epistle  ;  and  in  the  second 
Vol.  III.  9'> 


178  Review. 

epistle,  he  commands  him  to  come  to  him  shortly.  Timothy 
was  also  an  evangelist  of  that  order,  Eph.  4. — So  that  Doro- 
theus  says  in  his  Synopsis,  That  Timothy  preached  through  all 
Greece  ;  but  he  stayed  at  Ephesus  not  to  be  Bishop,  but  that, 
in  the  constitute  church  of  Ephesus,  he  might  oppose  the  false 
Apostles. — It  appears  therefore  that  he  was  more  than  a  Bi- 
shop, although  for  a  time  he  preached  in  that  city  as  a  pastor, 
and  ordained  some  to  the  ministry.  Hence  it  is,  some  calls 
him  Bishop  in  Ephesus.' 

"  Having  elsewhere  given  the  judgment  of  the  learned  Dr. 
Whitby  at  some  length,  all  that  1  shall  transcribe  from  him  at 
this  time,  is  a  few  lines  of  what  he  says  in  his  preface  to  the 
Epistle  to  Titus:  'First,  I  assert,  that  if  by  saying  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  Bishops,  the  one  of  Ephesus,  the  other  of  Crete,  we 
understand  they  look  upon  these  churches  or  dioceses  as  their 
fixed  and  peculiar  charge,  in  which  they  were  to  preside  for 
term  of  life,  I  believe,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  not  thus 
Bishops.'     See  Chap.  1  and  4. 

"  To  fortify  those  who  have  given  their  assault,  let  me  bring 
in  Mr.  Le  Clerc,  in  his  Supplement  to  Dr.  Hammond's  Anno- 
tations on  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  p.  530.  who  says,  '  The  testi- 
monies of  the  ancients  about  this  matter,  who  judge  rashly  of 
the  times  of  the  apostles  by  their  own,  and  speak  of  them  in 
the  language  of  their  own  age,  are  of  little  moment.  And  so 
do  no  more  prove  that  Titus  was  the  Bishop  of  the  island  of 
Crete,  than  what  Dr.  Hammond  says,  proves  him  to  have  been 
distinguished  with  the  title  of  Archbishop.'  To  the  same  pur- 
pose the  forecited  Dr.  Whitby  says,  '  The  great  controversy 
concerning  this  and  the  epistle  to  Timothy  is,  whether  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  were  indeed  made  Bishops  ;  the  one  in  Ephesus, 
and  the  Pro-consailar  Asia,  the  other  of  Crete,  and  having  au- 
thority to  make,  and  jurisdiction  over  so  many  Bishops  as 
were  in  those  precincts  ?  Now,  of  this  matter,  I  confess  1  can 
find  nothing  in  any  writer  of  the  first  three  centuries,  and  not 
any  intimation,  that  they  bore  that  name.' 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  179 

*'  Tlie  judgment  of  the  learned  Whittaker  is  supporting  on 
this  oceasion,  as  well  as  in  the  most  of  the  former,  who  says, 
Controv.  4.  Q.  4.  C.  2,  p,  374.  '  In  the  apostle's  times  there 
were  many  things  extraordinary.  There  was  another  form 
of  government  in  the  church  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and 
another  now,  is  acknowledged  by  Stapleton  :  For  it  was  then 
governed  by  the  apostles,  evangelists,  and  prophets,  but  now 
only  by  pastors  and  doctors  ;  the  rest  are  all  removed.'  From 
this  it  may  justly  be  inferred,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
not  ordinary  officers,  but  they  being  both  evangelists,  are  not 
succeeded  to  by  Bishops.  And  here  I  cannot  but  subjoin  the 
judgment  of  Chrysostom,  whom  our  adversaries,  I  hope,  will 
not  reject  as  an  adversary.  His  words,  as  translated  by  Smec- 
tymnuus,  are  these,  Paul  icould  not  commit  the  whole  island 
to  one  man,  but  would  have  every  man  appointed  to  his  charge 
and  cure.  For  so  he  knew  his  labour  would  be  the  lighter,  and 
the  people  thai  were  under  him  ivould  be  governed  with  the 
greater  diligence.  For  the  teacher  should  not  be  troubled  with 
the  government  of  many  churches,  but  only  intend  one,  and  study 
for  to  adorn  that.  The  remark  of  Smectymnuus  is  just.  There- 
fore this  was  Titus  his  work,  not  to  be  Bishop  of  Crete  him- 
self, but  to  ordain  Elders  in  every  city,  which  was  an  office 
above  that  of  a  Bishop. 

"  But  this  fortification  is  not  able  to  stand  ;  for  the  remark- 
able Mr.  Dodwell,  Parosnes.  Sect.  10.  p.  404.  attacks  it  most 
handsomely,  when  he  says,  '  But  truly,  that  the  office  of  [Ti- 
mothy] was  not  fixed,  but  itinerary,  many  arguments  do  evince. 
It  was  required  of  him  to  abide  at  Ephesus,  is  testified  by  the 
Apostle,  1  Tim.  i.  3.  He  was  therefore,  when  thus  demand- 
ed, an  itinerary.  The  work  of  an  Evangelist,  2  Tim.  vi.  5.  so 
many  journeyings  with  St.  Paul,  and  his  name  being  joined  in 
common  with  the  Apostle,  in  the  inscription  of  the  epistles  to  the 
Thessaloniajis,  are  all  of  them  arguments  for  this.  Moreover, 
the  apostle  commands  Titus  only  to  ordain,  in  Crete,  Presby- 
ters in  every  city,  Titus  i.  5.      He  says,  he  was  left  there,  that 


1 80  Review. 

he  might  set  in  order  things  that  were  wanting.  And  he  was 
a  companion  of  the  apostle  when  he  was  left.  And  truly, 
other  places  make  it  appear,  that  he  was  a  companion  of  St. 
.Paul,  and  therefore  was  no  more  restricted  to  any  particular 
place  than  the  apostle  himself.'  Thus  the  famous  Dodwell. 
And  from  what  has  been  said  from  so  many  learned  Episco- 
palian Doctors,  one  may  consider,  how  far  Bishop  Hall  had 
lost  his  senses,  when  he  saith  with  such  a  masterly  air, 
Episcop.  Divine  Right,  Sect.  4.  P.  2.  That  if  Episcopal 
power  of  ordination,  and  poiver  of  iniling  and  censuring  Pres- 
byters, be  not  clear  in  the  apostWs  charge  to  these  tioo  Bishops, 
the  one  of  Crete,  and  the  other  of  Ephesus,  I  shall  yield  the 
cause,  and  confess  to  tvant  my  senses.'''' 

"  But  now,  to  dismiss  this  conceit  of  Timothy's  being 
Bishop  of  Ephesus,  &c.  I  shall  give  the  judgment  of  the 
learned  Willet,  Synops.  Papism.  Contr.  5.  Q.  3.  '  Neither 
can  it  be  granted  by  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  Lay  hands 
suddenly  on  no  man,  ifcc.  that  Timothy  had  this  sole  power  in 
himself;  for,  the  apostle  would  not  give  that  to  him,  which 
he  did  not  take  to  himself,  who  associated   to  him  the  rest 

of  the  Presbyters  in   ordaining  of  Timothy.     It  is 

questioned,  says  he,  if  the  apostle  had  then  constituted  Ti- 
mothy bishop  there  [Ephesus  :]  For,  he  saith.  That  thou 
mightcst  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  docti-ine,''  &c. 
I  conclude  with  the  judgment  of  the  accurate  Dr.  Barrow, 
Pope^s  Supi-em.  p.  82.  whose  words  must  certainly  contra- 
dict this  notion  concerning  Timothy's  Episcopate  ;  for  he 
says,  '  Episcopacy  is  an  ordinary  standing  charge,  affixed 
to  one  standing  place,  and  requiring  a  special  attendance 
there  ;  Bishops  being  Pastors,  who,  as  St.  Chrysostom  says, 
do  sit,  and  are  employed  in  one  place.  Now,  he  that  hath 
such  a  general  charge,  can  hardly  discharge  such  a  particu- 
lar office,  and  he  is  fixed  to  a  particular  attertdance,  can 
hardly  look  after  so  general  a  charge.'  Though  this  is 
spoken  with  respect  to  the  Apostles  ;  yet  it  will  equally  hold 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  181 

with  respect  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  I  think,  by  this  time, 
this  strong  bulwark  has  ahnost  lost  its  beautiful  shapes,  and 
formidable  figures,  and  is  not  capable  of  doing  much  execu- 
tion. The  itinerary  life  of  the  apostles,  according  to  Bar- 
row, is  inconsistent  with  that  of  a  Bishop,  and  must  be  so 
likewise  with  that  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  seeing  they  were 
not  fixed  residenters  in  any  particular  place,  as  is  well  ob- 
served by  Mr.  Dodwell  :  and  it  must  conclude  against  them 
with  equal  force,  if  Dr.  Brett's  notion  be  true,  that  they  were 
both  of  the  Apostolic  order." 

No  equitable  judge  would  censure  us  for  leaving 
these  sons  of  the  hierarchy  to  dash  their  heads 
against  each  other,  and  declining  to  give  ourselves 
any  further  trouble.  We  are  not  obhged  to  inquire 
into  the  claim  which  they  set  up  for  Timothy  or 
Titus,  until  they  shall  themselves  ascertain  what 
the  claim  is  ;  nor  to  answer  their  plea,  until  they 
shall  cease  to  quarrel  about  its  correctness.  But, 
instead  of  taking  so  mortifying  an  advantage,  we 
shall  meet  the  question  as  it  is  stated  by  Cyprian 
and  the  Layman ;  referring  to  our  readers  for  an 
opinion  whether  or  not  we  are  afraid  to  have  the 
cause  tried  either  at  Ephesus  or  in  Crete ;  and 
under  any  form  which  our  Episcopal  friends  shall 
prefer. 

"  In  Titus  i.  5."  says  Cyprian,  "  it  is  said  by  the  Apostle 
Paul,  '  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest 
ordain  Elders  in  every  city."  Let  us  contemplate  the  circum- 
stances that  attended  tliis  transaction,  and  see  what  inferences 
we  can  draw  from  it.  St.  Paul  had  planted  the  gospel  in  the 
island  of  Crete.  He  had  made  proselytes  in  every  city  who 
stood    in     need  of    tlie    ministrations    of    Presbyters.     He 


1 82  Review. 

speaks  not  to  Titus  as  if  he  had  left  him  in  Crete  to  convert 
the  cities  to  the  faith.  He  speaks  as  if  this  work  was  ah'eady 
accompUshed,  as  if  the  way  was  paved  for  the  estabUshment 
of  the  Church.  These  being  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
it  appears  to  me  that  tliis  transaction  carries  on  its  face  a 
proof  of  superiority  on  the  part  of  Titus  to  the  Presbyters  or 
elders.  Will  it  be  imagined  by  any  reasonable  man,  that 
St.  Paul  had  converted  so  many  cities  on  this  island  without 
having  ordained  any  elders  amongst  them  1  What  !  When 
it  was  his  uniform  and  invariable  practice  to  ordain  Elders  in 
every  country  in  which  he  made  proselytes  ?  What !  Could 
he  have  neglected  to  ordain  those  amongst  them  who  were 
absolutely  necessary  to  transact  the  affairs  of  the  Church 
during  his  absence  1  Would  he  have  left  the  work  he  had 
begun  only  half  performed  ? 

"  These  considerations  are  sufficient  to  convince  every  un- 
prejudiced mind  that  there  were  Elders  or  Presbyters  in  the 
Church  of  Crete  at  the  time  St.  Paul  left  Titus  on  that  island. 
And  if  there  were  Presbyters,  and  those  Presbyters  had  the 
power  of  ordination,  why  was  it  necessary  to  leave  Titus 
amongst  them  in  order  to  perform  a  task  that  might  as  well 
have  been  accomplished  without  him  1  If  the  Presbyters 
possessed  an  authority  equal  to  that  of  Titus,  would  not  St. 
Paul,  by  leaving  him  amongst  them,  have  taken  the  surest 
way  to  interrupt  the  peace  of  the  Church,  to  engender  jea- 
lousy, and  strifes,  and  contentions  1  Again.  Let  us  view 
this  transaction  in  another  point  of  light.  St.  Paul  had  made 
converts,  as  I  have  said,  in  every  city  of  Crete.  Titus  had 
attended  him  on  his  last  visit  to  that  island.  If  Presbyters 
were  at  this  time  considered  as  competent  to  the  task  of  or- 
daining others,  why  did  he  not  ordain  one  at  any  rate  during 
his  stay  amongst  them,  and  commission  him  instead  of  de- 
taining Titus,  to  ordain  Elders  in  every  city  1  The  efforts 
of  Titus  were  as  much  wanted  as  his  own,  to  carry  the  light 
of  the  gospel  to  other  nations  who  had  not  received  it.  Why 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  183 

was  it  necessary  that  Titus  should  ordain  Elders  in  every  city  ? 
After  the  ordination  of  a  few,  M'ould  not  his  exertions  have 
become  useless,  if  they  were  able  to  complete  the  work  which 
he  had  begun  ? 

"  In  short,  Titus  seems  to  be  entrusted  with  all  the  autho- 
rity of  a  supreme  ruler  of  the  Church.  He  is  directed  to 
ordain  Presbyters — to  rebuke  with  all  authority — to  admo- 
nish hereticks,  and  in  case  of  obstinacy,  to  reject  them  from 
the  communion  of  the  Church.  These  circumstances  infal- 
libly designate  the  presence  of  a  Bishop.  Accordingly  we 
find  that  the  united  voice  of  ancient  writers  declares  him  to 
have  been  the  first  Bishop  of  Crete.  Eusebius  informs  us 
'  that  he  received  Episcopal  authority  over  the  Church  of 
Crete.'  So  also  says  Theodoret,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Jerome, 
St.  Ambrose.  If  these  considerations  united  do  not. show 
that  Titus  possessed  in  Ephesus  powers  superior  to  those 
which  were  held  by  the  Presbyters  of  those  Churches,  I  know 
not  what  considerations  would."* 

And  again  : 

"  The  case  of  Timothy  alone,  had  we  no  other  evidence 
from  Scripture,  would,  when  taken  into  connexion  with  the 
testimony  of  ancient  writers,  be  perfectly  satisfactory  to  me. 
This  alone  demonstrates  all  that  we  can  desire.  He  was 
placed  by  St.  Paul  to  superintend  the  Church  of  Ephesus. 
This  case  is  even  stronger  than  was  that  of  Titus  in  Crete. 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  had  long  been  Presbyters  in 
the  Church  of  Ephesus.  Listen  then  to  the  language  which 
St.  Paul  speaks  in  his  Epistles  to  him,  and  see  if  it  is  possi- 
ble that  he  possessed  no  superiority  over  the  Presbyters  of 
that  Church.  '  1  besought  thee,'  says  he  to  Timothy,  '  to 
abide  still  at  Ephesus  when  I  went  into  Macedonia,  that 
thou  mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doc- 
trine.'    Would  Timothy  have  been  commissioned  to  charge 

*    CtpriaxV,  No.  II.  Collec.  p.  64,  65. 


184  Review. 

the  Presbyters  to  teach  no  other  doctrine  had  he  possessed 
no  superiority  over  them  ?  Would  they  not  have  had  a  right 
to  resist  any  attempts  at  a  control  of  this  kind  as  an  en- 
croachment on  their  privileges  ?  Again,  Timothy  is  direct- 
ed to  try  and  examine  the  Deacons,  whether  they  be  blame- 
less or  not.  If  they  prove  themselves  worthy,  he  is  to  admit 
them  into  the  office  of  a  Dpacon ;  and  upon  a  faithful  dis- 
charge of  that  office,  they  are  to  be  elevated  to  a  higher  sta- 
tion. '  Likewise,'  says  he,  '  must  the  Deacons  be  grave,  not 
double-tongued,  not  given  to  much  wine,  not  greedy  of  filthy- 
lucre,  holding  the  mystery  of  faith  in  a  pure  conscience.' 
*  Let  these  also  be  first  proved,  and  then  let  them  use  the 
office  of  a  Deacon,  being  found  blameless.'  Here  we  find 
no  mention  made  of  the  Presbyters  of  Ephesus,  in  the  ordi- 
nation of  Deacons.  They  are  not  associated  with  him  at  all 
in  the  work.  Does  not  this  indicate,  does  it  not  demonstrate 
a  superiority  of  power  on  the  part  of  Timothy  ?  Timothy  is 
also  exhorted  to  'lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man.'  There  is 
no  such  thing  as  a  recognition  even  of  the  co-operation  of 
Presbyters  with  him.  He  seems  to  be  the  supreme  and  the 
only  agent  in  the  transaction  of  these  affairs. 

"  Now,  I  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  had 
the  Presbyters  of  Ephesus  possessed  an  authority  equal  to 
that  of  Timothy ;  had  they,  like  him,  possessed  the  power  of 
ordination,  would  not  St.  Paul  have  recognized  their  agency 
in  connexion  with  his  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  to  treat 
them  with  improper  neglect  not  to  mention  them  ?  But  what 
consummates  our  evidence  on  this  point,  and  places  the  sub- 
ject beyond  all  doubt,  is  the  charge  which  St.  Paul  gives  to 
Timothy  in  relation  to  the  penal  discipline  he  was  to  exercise 
over  his  Presbyters.  Timothy  is  required  to  '  receive  an  ac- 
cusation against  an  elder  or  Presbyter,  only  before  two  or 
three  witnesses.'  '  Them,  (that  is,  those  amongst  the  Pres- 
byters,) that  sin,  rebuke  before  all,  that  others  also  may  fear.' 
Can  any  one  imagine  that  Timothy  would  have  been  com- 


Kssays  on  Kpiscopacy.  185 

missioned  to  listen  to  acctisations  made  against  Presbyters, 
openly  to  rebuke  them,  had   not  his  authority  transcended 
theirs  ?     Does   not  this   single  circumstance  unquestionably 
establish  the  point  of  his  superiority  1  '  The  man,'  says  a  learn- 
ed and  ingenious  writer  of  our  country,   '  who  shall  not  find 
a  Bishop  in  Ephesus,  will  be  puzzled  to  find  one  in  England.'* 
"  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  case  that  could  be  more  clear  and 
iniequivocal,  that    could  speak   more  loudly  to  the  common 
sense  of  mankind,   than    the   case  of  Timothy  in  Ephesus. 
He  is   obviously  intrusted  with  apostolic  authority.     Every 
thing  which  the  Apostle  could  do  in  his  own  person,  he  com- 
missions  Timothy  to  perform  during  his  absence.     He  is  to 
adjust  the  affairs  of  the  church  ;  he  is  to  prove  and  examine 
Deacons  ;  he  alone  is  to  ordain  them  ;  he  alone  is  recognized 
in  the  performance  of  the  task  of  ordaining  Elders  or  Pres- 
byters ;  he    possesses  perfect  control  over  these  Presbyters. 
If  they  are  guilty  of  any  offences  or  misdemeanours,  he  is 
to  inflict  punishment  upon  them.     I  cannot  conceive  of  a  case 
more  satisfactory   in   proof  of  the  apostolic  original  of  the 
Episcopal  form  of  Church  government.     Had  Timothy  been 
of  the  same  order  with  the  Presbyters  of  Ephesus,  can  it  be 
imagined  that   the   Apostle  would,  by  elevating  him  to  such 
high  privileges  amongst  them,  have  endangered  the  peace  of 
the  Church,  have  taken  a  step  so  well  calculated  to  excite  dis- 
content and  dissatisfaction  amongst  the  remaining  Presbyters 
or  Elders  1     This  cannot  be  imagined.     Timothy  was  then 
undeniably  intrusted  with  Episcopal  authority  in  the  Church 
of  Ephesus  ;  he  was  the  Bishop  of  that  place.     This  is  prov- 
ed by  the  concurring  voice  of  ancient  writers.     Eusebius  tells 
us  '  that  he  was  the  first  Bishop  of  the  province  or  diocese  of 
Ephesus.'     The   anonymous  author  of  his   life  in  Phocius 
says,  '  that  he  was   the  first  that  acted  as  Bishop  in  Ephe- 
sus, and  that  he  was  ordained   Bishop  of   the   metropolis  of 
Ephesus  by  the  great  St.  Paul.'     lu  the   council  of  Chalce- 

*  Dr.  Bowden,  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Stiles. 
Vol.  III.  24 


1 86  Review. 

don  twenty-seven  bishops  are  said  to  have  succeeded  in  that 
cliair  from  Timothy.  To  prove  the  same  point  goes  the  tes- 
mony  of  St.  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret ;  and  in  the  aposto- 
lical constitutions  we  are  expressly  told,  that  he  was  ordained 
Bishop  of  Ephesus  by  St.  Paul."* 

The  Layman  speaks  to  the  same  purpose. 

"  In  whom  was  the  power  of  ordination  vested  in  the 
Churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete  1  Clearly  in  Timothy  and 
Titus  alone.  Them  alone  the  apostle  addresses,  and  them 
alone  he  speaks  of  as  ordaining  Elders,  or  as  committing  the 
things  they  had  received  from  him  to  faithful  men,  capable 
of  teaching  others.  Is  this  not  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
Presbyterian  system  ?  What  individual  among  them  could 
with  propriety  be  addressed  as  the  apostle  addresses  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  ?  Not  one.  The  power  among  them  is  in  a 
numerous  body  of  equals,  lest  there  should  be  '  lords  over 
God''s  heritage.''  The  power,  in  Ephesus  and  Crete,  was  in 
Timothy  and  Titus,  to  whom  the  Presbyters  were  subject, 
liable  to  be  tried  and  punished  for  misconduct.  It  is  on  this 
plain  statement  of  facts,  relative  to  Ephesus  and  Crete,  as 
well  as  to  other  churches,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  uni- 
form and  uninterrupted  testimony  of  the  church  universal  for 
fifteen  hundred  years,  that  Episcopalians  rest  their  cause. 
They  have  never  endeavoured  to  derive  arguments  from  the 
names  made  use  of.  This  has  been  the  practice,  exclusively, 
of  the  advocates  of  parity.  Driven  from  the  ground  of  fact, 
not  able  to  deny  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  supreme 
Governors  in  the  churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete,  possess- 
ing alone  the  power  of  ordination,  they  say  that  Timothy 
is  called  a  Presbyter,  and  was  therefore  upon  a  level  with 
those  very  elders  whom  he  ruled,  whom  he  could  control  as 
to  the  doctrines  they  preached,  whom  he  had  power  to  try 
and  to  punish  !"t 

*  CvpRiAN,  No.  III.  Colkc.  p.  74,  75. 
^   T  ATMAN,  No.  V.    Colkc.  p.  56, 


Essays  0)1  Episcopacy.  187 

"  It  is  very  easy,"  says  he,  "  to  see  why  the  advocates  of 
parity  would  exclude  from  view  the  situation  of  Timothy  in 
the  church  of  Ephesus,  since  it  carries  absolute  death  to 
their  cause.  Is  it  an  immaterial  circumstance  that  Timothy 
ruled  the  whole  church  of  Ephesus,  both  clergy  and  laity, 
the  Elders  or  Presbyters  being  subject  to  his  spiritual  juris- 
diction 1  Is  it  an  immaterial  circumstance  that  Timothy  alone 
exercised  the  power  of  ordaining  Ministers,  and  thus  of  con- 
veying the  sacerdotal  authority  ?  What  then  becomes  of  the 
doctrine  of  parity  1  Destroyed,  utterly  destroyed.  The  Church 
of  Ephesus,  planted  by  St.  Paul,  and  placed,  by  that  Apos- 
tle, under  the  government  of  Timothy,  was  constructed  upon 
a  totally  different  principle.  It  had,  in  Timothy,  a  Bishop, 
possessing  jurisdiction  over  the  other  clergy,  and  exercising 
all  the  powers  which  are  claimed  for  the  Bishops  of  the 
church  now.  Is  it  of  no  consequence  that  the  ancients,  who 
speak  on  the  subject,  unanimously  represent  Timothy  as  the 
first  Bishop  of  Ephesus  1  What  says  Eusebius  1  '  He  was 
the  first  Bishop  of  the  province  or  diocese  of  Ephesus.'  Eccl. 
Hist.  Bib.  iii.  chap.  4.  What  says  Chrysostom  1  '  It  is  ma- 
nifest Timothy  was  intrusted  with  a  whole  nation,  viz.  Asia.' 
Horn,  loth  in  1  Tim.  v.  19.  Theodoret  calls  him  the  Apos- 
tle of  the  Asiatics.  The  Apostolical  constitutions  expressly 
tell  us  that  he  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Ephesus  by  St.  Paul ; 
and  in  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  twenty-seven  Bishops  are 
said  to  have  succeded  him  in  the  government  of  that  Church. 

"  We  are  perfectly  safe,  then,  so  far  as  relates  to  Timothy, 
in  resting  our  cause  upon  the  situation  which  he  occupied  at 
Ephesus,  and  on  the  powers  which  he  exercised  there. 
The  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus  was  undeniably 
Episcopal.  This  part  of  the  subject  the  advocates  of  parity 
do  not  choose  to  meddle  with,  running  off  constantly  to  the 
terra  Presbytery,  that  poor  word  being  the  chief  basis  of  their 
cause."* 

*  Proscript  to  the  Layman,  No.  VIII.  Colkc.  p.  81. 


188  R 


evtew. 


And  thus  the  Episcopal  arm  has  "  carried  death 
to  our  cause  !"  And  thus  "  the  doctrine  of  pari- 
ty" is  "  destroyed,  utterly  destroyed  !" 

Not  so  fast,  good  Mr.  Layman.  We  have  an 
objection  or  two  to  such  a  settlement  of  our  af- 
fairs ;  and  shall  take  the  liberty  of  stating  them. 

The  reader  will  remember  that  we  confine  our- 
selves, at  present,  to  the  Scriptural  argument ;  and 
therefore  shall  not  notice  any  quotations  from  the 
Fathers.  One  thing  at  a  time  ;  and  every  thing 
in  its  place. 

This  is  the  argument  which  the  Layman  tells 
us  "  the  advocates  of  parity  do  not  choose  to 
meddle  with."  If  it  be  so,  the  terrour  is  needless. 
But  the  assertion  is  only  a  polemical  flourish,  such 
as  the  Layman  is  accustomed  to  make  for  the 
entertainment  of  his  friends :  the  fact,  as  usual, 
being  quite  the  other  v\^ay.  For  if  he  will  be  at 
the  trouble,  for  the  first  time,  as  we  presume,  in 
his  life,  to  inspect  the  writings  of  the  advocates  of 
parity  at  any  period  from  the  reformation  to  this 
day,  he  will  find  that  they  have  not  only  "  med- 
dled" with  his  argument,  but  so  mauled  and  maim- 
ed it,  so  battered  and  crushed  it,  that  even  skilful 
diocesan  doctors  have  given  it  up  for  dead,  and 
wondered  at  that  delirious  fondness  which,  in- 
stead of  decently  interring  it,  insisted  upon  keep- 
ing it  above  ground.  Its  ghost,  however,  seems 
disquieted,  and  walks  in  company  with  the  Lay- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  189 

man  and  Cyprian,  to  frighten  the  Presbyterian 
women  and  children — We  must  lay  it. 

Merriment  apart — What  do  these  long  extracts, 
with  their  glowing  interrogations,  prove  ?  Why, 
that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  superior  to  Presby- 
ters !  Who  denies  it  ?  "  What !  do  you  allow 
that  they  had,  severally,  the  power  of  ordaining 
to  the  ministry,  by  their  sole  authority  ?"  Yes, 
we  do  !  That  they  had  authority  to  inquire  into 
the  doctrines  taught  by  Presbyters  ?"  Yes.  "  To 
coerce  the  unruly  ?"  Yes.  "  To  expel  the  hereti- 
cal .'^"  Yes — We  never  thought  of  disputing  it — 
"  Then,  certainly,  they  were  diocesan  Bishops  !" 
Cest  une  autre  affaire.^  Monsieur.  That  is  another 
point.  We  admit  the  premises  here  stated,  but 
deny  the  conclusion.  Timothy  and  Titus  could 
do  all  these  things  without  being  diocesan  Bi- 
shops. An  apostle  could  do  them  in  virtue  of  his 
apostolic  office  :  an  evangelist,  as  Timothy,  and 
consequently,  Titus,  undoubtedly  was,*  could  do 
them  in  virtue  of  his  office  as  an  evansrelist :  and 
yet  be  very  unlike  a  diocesan  bishop.  And  to  in- 
fer that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  bishops  in  the 
prelatical  sense  of  the  term,  because  they  enjoy- 
ed a  pre-eminence  and  an  authority  which  they 
might  enjoy  without  being  such  bishops  at  all,  is  to 
abuse  the  understanding  of  the  reader.  Our  op- 
ponent ought  to  prove  not  only  that  they  exer- 

•  2  Tim.  iv.  5.     "  Do  the  work  of  an  Evangelist." 


190  Review. 

cised  the  powers  enumerated,  but  that  they  did 
so  as  ordinary  officers  in  whom  a  precedent  was  set 
for  the  future  government  of  the  church.  He  must 
prove  that  their  powers  were  not  an  appendage  of 
their  special  and  extraordinary  character,  Uke  the 
powers  pecuhar  to  the  apostolic  character.  This 
he  neither  has  done,  nor  is  able  to  do  :  and  thus 
the  boasted  demonstration  of  Episcopacy  from 
the  history  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  is  a  mere  beg- 
ging of  the  question — taking  for  granted  the  very 
thing  in  dispute. 

Let  us  apply  this  all  conquermg  argument  to 
other  cases  which  appear  to  be  perfectly  parallel. 

Episcopal  argument. 
Titus  ordained  elders  in  every  city — Therefore 
Titus  was  Bishop  of  Crete. 

Parallelism. 

Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained  elders  in  every 
church,  to  wit,  in  Lystra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch, 
at  least* — Therefore  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  joint 
Bishops  of  Lystra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch. 

Episcopal  argument. 

Timothy  instructed  and  charged  the  Ephesian 
elders — Therefore  he  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus  ! 

Parallelis?7i. 

Paul  instructed  and  charged  the  Ephesian  el- 
derst — Therefore  Paul  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus. 

*Act.  xiv.  20,  21.  23.  t  ^ct.  xx.  17,  &c. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  191 

Episcopal  argument. 

Timothy  had  power  to  inflict  censure  on  Pres- 
byters, and  even  to  excommunite  heretics — There- 
fore Timothy  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus. 

Parallelism. 

Paul  had  power  to  excommunicate  offenders  in 
the  Corinthian  church* — Therefore  Paul  was  Bi- 
shop of  Corinth. 

The  parallel  might  be  run  further  :  but  the  fore- 
going will  evince,  that  the  very  same  mode  of 
reasoning  which  proves  Timothy  to  have  been  Bi- 
shop of  Ephesus,  and  Titus  of  Crete,  will  also 
prove  every  one  of  the  Apostles  to  have  been  bi- 
shop of  every  place  where  he  exercised  any  of 
those  functions  which  the  Episcopal  church  has 
restrained  to  her  prelates.  This  her  advocates 
know  to  be  absurd ;  and  so  does  all  the  world 
beside.  And  yet  let  them  show,  if  they  can,  that 
our  argument  for  the  diocesan  ubiquity  of  the 
apostles,  is  not  fully  as  fair  and  as  conclusive  as 
their  own  for  the  bishopricks  of  Timothy  and 
Titus;  and  is  not/ounded  on  the  very  same  prin- 
ciples. 

There  is  nothing  else  in  the  Layman  or  Cyprian, 
which  has  even  the  shadow  of  an  argument,  un- 
less it  be  such  suggestions  as  these  : 

"  Will  it  be  imagined  by  any  reasonable  man,  that  St.  Paul 
had  converted  so  many  cities  on  this  island,"  (Crete,)  "  with- 

»  1  Cor.  V.  5. 


1 92  Review. 

out  having  ordained  any  elders  amongst  them  ?  What !  when 
.it  was  his  uniform  and  invariable  practice  to  ordain  elders  in 
every  country  in  which  he  made  proselytes  1  What !  could  he 
have  neglected  to  ordain  those  amongst  them  who  were  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  transact  the  afl'airs  of  the  church  in  his  ab- 
sence 1  Would  he  have  left  the  work  he  had  begun  only  half 
performed  1"* 

Cyprian  sets  himself  down  in  his  study  at  Alba- 
ny, and,  knowing  infinitely  more  than  any  author 
sacred  or  profane  has  told  him,  first  determines 
what  the  Apostle  ought  to  have  done  seventeen  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  ago  in  Crete  :  next,  very  wise- 
ly concludes  that  Paul,  being  also  a  wise  man,  ac- 
tually did  as  he,  Cyprian,  has  laid  down  and  deter- 
mined ;  then,  furnishes  the  churches  of  Crete  with 
Presbyters ;  and,  wanting  still  more,  manufactures 
Titus  into  a  Bishop  to  supply  the  deficiency.  Ex- 
cellent !  But  where  did  Cyprian  get  his  facts  ? 
Where  did  he  learn  so  positively  what  was  Paul's 
"  uniform  and  invariable  practice,"  in  the  article 
of  ordination  ?  He  ought  to  have  been  cautious 
of  affronting  his  old  guide,  whose  account  of  Paul's 
"  practice,"  is  entirely  diflferent  from  his  own. 

"  One  quahfication  for  a  Bishop  was,  that  he 
should  not  be  (iV£og)i;Tog)  a  novice ;  that  is,  one 
newly  converted;  time  being  required  to  prove 
men  before  they  could  be  intrusted  with  the  care 
of  the  church.  And  therefore  the  Apostles  used 
not  to  ordain  ministers  in  any  place  before  the  second 
time  of  their  coming  thither — Sometimes,  when  they 

*  Cyprian,  as  above. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  193 

had  no  prospect  of  returning,  they  gave  others  a 
commission  to  ordain  ministers.  For  which  reason 
Titus  was  left  in  Crete  by  St.  Paul  to  ordain  minis- 
ters in  all  cities.  But  there  will  scarce  be  found 
a7iy  instance  of  their  ordaining  ministers  at  i]\Q  first 
time  of  their  coming  to  any  place."* 

It  was  rather  bold  in  Cyprian  to  chastise  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  whom  on  other  occa- 
sions he  so  implicitly  follows,  for  being  ignorant  of 
Paul's  "  uniform  and  invariable  practice :"  but 
there  is  something  bolder  behind :  for,  if  we  mis- 
take not,  the  rector's  rod  has  reached  the  back  of 
the  Apostle  himself  He  broadly  insinuates,  that 
Paul  could  not,  without  culpable  negligence,  have 
omitted  to  create  officers  who  were  necessary  to 
transact  the  affairs  of  the  church  in  his  absence; 
and  that  had  he  done  so,  he  would  have  left  his 
work  only  half  performed.  Now  it  so  happens  that 
Paul,  according  to  his  own  testimony,  did  not  fur- 
nish the  churches  in  Crete  with  the  requisite  of- 
ficers, or  else  he  left  Titus  to  ordain  such  as  were 
not  absolutely  necessary — he  did  actually  leave 
the  work  he  had  begun  unfinished ;  whether  only 
"  half  performed,"  or  one  third,  or  two  thirds, 
he  does  not  say ;  but  so  much  was  undone  as  to 
demand  the  stay  of  Titus  to  complete  it.  The 
express  terms  of  his  commission  are,  "That  thou 
shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  loanting.'''' 
or,  as  the  margin  of  our  English  version  has  it,  the 

*  Potter.   Discourse  on  Church  Government,  p.  101,  102. 

Vol.  111.  25 


194  R 


evteiv. 


things  that  are  '•  left  undone,''*  and  one  of  these 
things,  as  the  very  next  words  indicate,  was  the 
ordination  of  Presbyters — "  and  ordain  Elders  in 
every  city."  Cyprian's  assumption,  therefore,  that' 
Paul  ordained  Presbyters  in  Crete,  is  without  a 
particle  of  evidence.  There  is  not  a  syllable  in 
the  whole  narrative,  from  which  we  can  infer  that 
there  was  a  single  Presbyter  in  the  island  at  his 
departure.  The  contrary  inference  is  much  the 
more  natural.  If  Titus  was  instructed  to  ordain 
Presbyters  in  every  city,  the  presumption  is,  that 
none  had  been  ordained  hitherto.  For,  to  turn  the 
edge  of  Cyprian's  weapon  against  himself,  it  is 
very  improbable  that  the  Apostle  in  organizing  the 
several  churches,  would  begin  to  ordain  Presby- 
ters; would  stop  in  the  middle  of  his  business;  hie 
off  to  another  place ;  do  the  same  sort  of  half 
work  there;  and  so  from  city  to  city;  and  then 
send  Titus  upon  a  traveUing  tour  to  compensate 
for  the  deficiencies  occasioned  by  his  haste,  his 
negligence,  or  his  whim.  But  so  it  is.  Titus 
shall  be  Bishop  of  Crete.  The  proof  of  his  title 
will  fail  if  there  be  no  Presbyters  there — Well, 
then,  there  shall  be  Presbyters  there,  or  else  Paul 
shall  be  convicted  of  neglecting  his  duty  : — But 
Paul  did  not  neglect  his  duty;  therefore  there 
ivere  Presbyters  in  Crete  when  he  left  it ;  therefore 
Titus  was  a  Bishop.  Excellently  well  reasoned, 
Mr.  Rector  !    And  so—-'  Fair  play,"  interrupts  an 

*  Ttt  XSl'TT'OVTa. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  195 

Episcopal  voice,  '•  it  does  not  follow  from  the  re- 
presentation of  Cyprian,  that  Paul  ordained  some 
elders  in  every  city ;  and  left  Titus  to  ordain  the 
rest.  His  words  will  bear  another  meaning  :  viz. 
that  the  full  complement  of  Presbyters  were  or- 
dained in  some  cities,  but  none  at  all  in  others  : 
and  that  Titus  was  directed  to  ordain  in  these, 
which  would  not  have  been  necessary,  had  Pres- 
byters possessed  the  power  of  ordination :  seeing 
that  those  of  one  district  might  have  ordained  for 
another,  as  is  done  at  this  day  by  the  Presbyte- 
rians. And  so,  Mr.  Reviewer,  you  are  still  in  the 
wrong,  and  Titus  is  a  Bishop." 

Not  yet,  if  yQu  please,  dear  Sir.  Allowing  your 
premises,  your  conclusion  is  not  good.  The 
Presbyters  newly  ordained  had  abundance  of  oc- 
cupation, with  very  little  experience.  A  proper 
choice  of  officers  in  the  first  instance  was  all  im- 
portant to  the  infant  churches.  Titus  had  supe- 
riour  qualifications  for  making  a  wise  selection ; 
he  could  also  resolve  many  difficulties  which  might 
have  been  too  hard  for  others.  He  was  deputed 
by  the  Apostle  to  set  everything  in  order  through 
the  island,  that  when  he  should  be  gone  the  stated 
officers  might  have  less  trouble.  In  ordaining 
,  Presbyters  he  was  doing  the  work  of  an  Evange- 
list. The  churches  were  organized  in  the  best 
manner,  and  with  the  greatest  expedition ;  while 
the  Presbyters  were  permitted  to  superintend, 
without  distraction,  the  flocks  just  committed  to 


1 96  Review. 

their  care.  There  is  no  example  of  the  Apostle's 
calling  away  Presbyters  from  their  charges  im- 
mediately after  their  erection,  and  sending  them 
round  the  country  to  ordain  others.  This  was  the 
appropriate  employment  of  the  apostles  themselves.,  and 
their  assistants,  the  evangelists.  They  established 
the  evangelical  order,  and  consigned  it  to  the  or- 
dinary ministry.  Presbyters,  therefore,  might  have 
been  ordained  in  some  cities,  (although  this  is  a 
mere  supposition  ;)  Titus  might,  notwithstanding, 
ordain  others  in  the  remaining  cities,  and  yet  not 
be  Bishop  of  Crete.  And  certainly  if  his  ordain- 
ing some  elders  proves  him  to  have  been  Bishop 
of  that  island  ;  Paul's  ordaining  some,  proves  him 
also  to  have  been  her  Bishop. 

Having  exposed  the  weakness  and  vanity  of  the 
argument  drawn  for  diocesan  Episcopacy  from 
the  examples  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  we  might  rest 
the  cause  here:  but  we  advance  a  step  further, 
and  offer,  what  no  laws  of  discussion  exact  from 
us,  to  establish  the  negative.  That  is,  the  proof, 
as  we  have  manifested,  that  they  i^ere  such  Bishops, 
having  miserably  failed,  we  shall  assign  reasons 
for  our  conviction  that  they  were  not. 

1.  The  very  terms  of  their  commission  favour  us. 

What  does  Paul  say?  That  he  gave  Ephesus  to 
Timothy,  and  Crete  to  Titus,  as  their  regular  and 
permanent  charges  }  No :  nothing  hke  it.  The 
former  staid,  at  the  Apostle's  request,  to  resist  the 
inroads  of  false  doctrine,  which  had  begun  to  in- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  197 

feet  some  of  the  public  teachers.  The  latter  to 
finish  the  organization  of  the  churches  begun  by 
the  Apostle  himself  Each,  then,  had  a  specific 
charge,  relating  not  to  the  government  of  settlea 
churches,  but  to  their  preparation  for  it;  or  to  the 
correction  of  abuses  for  restoring  and  preserving 
their  purity.  In  both  cases  the  charge  was  tem- 
porary. Paul  seized  these  occasions  to  furnish 
his  substitutes  with  written  directions  containing  a 
manual  of  general  instruction  to  them,  and  through 
them  to  the  future  ministry ;  and,  with  such  an  ob- 
ject in  view,  it  was  perfectly  natural  for  him  to 
compress  into  his  mstructions  so  great  a  compass 
of  matter. 

2.  Paul's  mode  of  addressing  Timothy  implies 
that  Ephesus  was  not  his  peculiar  charge.  I  be- 
sought thcc,  says  he,  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus.  A 
strange  formula  of  appointment  to  a  man's  proper 
station  !  it  carries  a  strong  and  evident  implica- 
tion, that  Timothy  remained  there  not  because  it 
was  his  diocese,  but  to  gratify  the  apostle  by  at- 
tending to  the  exigencies  of  the  pubhc  service.  It 
bespeaks  reluctance  in  Timothy  to  stay  behind ; 
Paul  had  to  entreat  him.  All  which,  again,  is  en- 
tirely natural  upon  the  supposition  of  his  being 
the  apostle's  companion  and  assistant  in  planting 
churches :  but  offensive  and  monstrous  upon  the 
supposition  of  his  being  bishop  of  Ephesus. 

"  For  why,"  says  Daille',  beseech  a  Bishop  to 
"  remain  in  his  diocese  ?     Is  it  not  to  beseech  a 


1 98  Review. 

man  to  stay  in  a  place  to  which  he  is  bound  ?  I 
should  not  think  it  strange  to  beseech  him  to  leave 
it,  if  his  service  were  needed  elsewhere.  But  to 
beseech  him  to  abide  in  a  place  where  his  charge 
obhges  him  to  be,  and  which  he  cannot  forsake 
without  offending  God  and  neglecting  his  duty,  is, 
to  say  the  truth,  not  a  very  civil  entreaty ;  as  it 
plainly  presupposes  that  he  has  not  his  duty  much 
at  heart,  seeing  one  is  under  the  necessity  of  be- 
seeching him  to  do  it."* 

This  is  the  language  of  good  sense — No  squeez- 
ing; no  twisting;  no  forcing;  all  which  the  hie- 
rarchy must  do  when  she  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
Paul  such  an  awkward,  bungling  speech  as,  /  be- 
sought thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus  ; — for — "  1  con- 
stituted thee  bishop  of  Ephesus."  We  shall,  how- 
ever, suggest  an  improvement,  for  which  we  look 
for  the  benedictions  of  some  gentlemen  in  lawn ; 
viz.  That  Timothy  being  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  and 
relishing  confinement  to  his  charge  so  little  as  to 
lay  the  Apostle  under  a  necessity  of  beseeching  him 
to  stay  in  it,  affords  the  best  possible  precedent 
and  plea  for  priests  and  Bishops  who  had  rather 
be  detected  any  where  than  in  their  parishes  and 
dioceses — except — at  tything  time. 

3.  "  If  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus,  it  must 
be  when  the  first  epistle  was  written.  For  it  is  in 
that  epistle  in  which  he  is  said  to  receive  his  pre- 
tended charge  of  exercising  his  Episcopal  power 

*  Daii.le',  ci-dessux,  p.  23. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  199 

in  ordination  and  jurisdiction.  But  now  this  first 
epistle  was  written  wlien  Paul  was  at  Macedonia, 
as  the  learned,  both  new  and  old,  Papists  and  Pro- 
testants, agree.  And  it  was  after  this  when  Paul 
came  to  Miletum  accompanied  with  Timothy,  and 
sends  for  the  elders  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus 
unto  him,  and  commends  the  government  of  the 
Church  unto  these  Elders,  whom  he  calls  Bishops. 
Now  surely  if  Timothy  had  been  constituted  their 
Bishop,  (in  the  sense  of  our  adversaries,)  the 
Apostle  would  not  have  called  the  elders  Bishops 
before  their  Bishop's  face,  and  instead  of  giving  a 
charge  to  the  Elders  to  feed  the  flock  of  Christ, 
he  would  have  given  that  charge  to  Timothy,  and 
not  to  them :  and  no  doubt  he  would  have  given 
some  directions  to  the  Elders  how  to  carry  them- 
selves towards  their  Bishop.  And  because  none 
of  these  things  were  done,  it  is  a  clear  demonstra- 
tion to  us,  that  Timothy  was  not  at  that  time 
Bishop  of  Ephesus. 

"  To  avoid  the  force  of  this  argument,  there  are 
some  that  say,  that  Timothy  was  not  made  Bishop 
of  Ephesus  till  after  Paul's  first  being  a  prisoner  at 
Rome,  which  was  after  his  being  at  Miletum.  But 
these  men,  while  they  seek  to  avoid  the  Scylla  of 
one  inconvenience,  fall  into  the  Charybdis  of  ano- 
ther as  great.  For  if  Timothy  was  not  made 
Bishop  till  Paufs  first  being  at  Rome,  then  he  was 
not  Bishop  when  the  first  Epistle  was  written  to 
him  (which  all  agree  to  be  written  before  that 


200  Review. 

time.)  And  then  it  will  also  follow,  that  all  that 
charge  that  was  laid  upon  him,  both  of  ordination 
and  jurisdiction,  and  that  entreating  of  him  to  abide 
at  Ephesus,  was  given  to  him  not  as  to  the  Bishop 
of  Ephesus,  (which  he  was  not,)  but  as  to  an  ex- 
traordinary officer,  sent  thither  upon  special  occa- 
sion, with  a  purpose  of  returning  when  his  work 
imposed  was  finished.  From  both  these  conside- 
rations we  may  safely  conclude, 

"  That  if  Timothy  were  neither  constituted 
Bishop  of  Ephesus  before  Paul's  first  being  pri- 
soner at  Rome,  nor  after ;  then  he  was  not  con- 
stituted Bishop  at  all.  But  he  was  neither  con- 
stituted Bishop  before  nor  after,  &c.  Ergo,  not 
at  all."* 

By  this  time  we  trust  the  reader  is  satisfied  that 
Timothy  was  not  Bishop  of  Ephesus ;  and,  as  it 
is  agreed  that  his  functions  and  those  of  Titus 
were  alike,  the  conclusion  is,  that  the  latter  was 
not  Bishop  of  Crete.  What  were  they  then  }  We 
answer,  they  were  extraordinary  ojjicers,  known  in 
the  .j^postolic  church  by  the  name  of  evangelists; 
and  employed  as  travelling  companiojis  and  assistants 
of  the  Apostles,  in  propagating  the  gospel. 

For  this  purpose  their  powers,  like  those  of  the 
Apostles,  were  extraordinary ;  their  office  too  was 
temporary ;  and  therefore  their  superiority  over 
Presbyters  is  no  precedent  nor  warrant  for  retain- 
ing such  superiority  in  the  permanent  order  of  the 

*  Jus  divinum  ministerii  Anglicani.  p.  65,  66  4to.  1654. 


Essays  on  Kpiscopacy.  201 

church.  That  such  was  the  nature  of  the  office 
of  an  evangehst,  we  have  testimony  which  our 
Episcopal  brethren  will  not  dispute — the  testimo- 
ny of  bishop  Eusebius. 

This  celebrated  historian  tells  us,  that  even  in 
the  second  century  there  were  disciples  of  the 
apostles,  "  who  every  where  built  upon  the  foun- 
dations which  the  apostles  had  laid :  preaching 
the  gospel,  and  scattering  the  salutary  seeds  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  over  the  face  of  the  earth. 
And,  moreover,  very  many  of  the  disciples  of  that 
day  travelled  abroad,  and  performed  the  work  of 
EVANGELISTS ;  ardcutly  ambitious  of  preaching 
Christ  to  those  who  were  yet  wholly  unacquainted 
with  the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  to  deliver  to  them 
the  scripture  of  the  divine  gospels.  These,  having 
merely  laid  the  foundations  of  the  faith,  and  ordained 
OTHER  PASTORS,  Committed  to  them  the  cultivation  of 
the  churches  newly  planted ;  while  they  themselves,  sup- 
ported  by  the  grace  and  co-operation  of  God,  proceeded 
to  OTHER  COUNTRIES  AND  NATIONS.  For  €ven  then, 
many  astonishing  miracles  of  the  divine  spirit  were 
wrought  by  them."* 

Eusebius  has  used  the  very  expression  of  Paul 
to  Timothy,  viz.  the  loork  of  an  evangelist ;  and  if 
the  reader  compare  his  description  of  that  work 
with  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  with 
their  history  as  it  may  be  gathered  from  the  New 
Testament,  he  will  perceive  the  most  exact  ac- 

*EusEBn,  Hi9.  Ecchs.  Lib-  inc.  37.  ed.  Reading,  T.  i.  p.  133. 
Vol.  III.  26 


202  Review. 

cordance.  That  is,  he  will  perceive  the  work  of 
an  evangelist,  like  the  work  of  an  apostle,  to  have 
been  altogether  extraordinary  and  temporary. 

Paul  took  up  Timothy  at  Lystra,*  according  to 
the  chronology  of  our  bibles,  in  the  year  of  Christ, 
52.  He  accompanied  the  apostle  in  his  travels ; 
for  at  the  close  of  the  next  year,  53,  he  was  with 
him  at  Berea,  and  staid  there  when  Paul  was  sent 
away  by  the  brethren.t  By  the  persons  who  con- 
ducted Paul  he  received  a  message  to  come  to 
him  at  Athens;  but  did  not  join  him,  as  appears, 
till  he  was  at  Corinth,:j:  the  year  after,  54.  The 
next  two  years  he  made  a  part  of  the  apostle's 
retinue ;  was  with  him  when  he  wrote  both  his 
Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians;||  and,  at  the  close 
of  that  period,  was  sent,  with  Erastus,  into  Mace- 
donia, omno  56.§  Three  years  after  he  was  de- 
spatched to  Corinth  rlT  and  the  next,  anno  60,  had 
returned,  and  was  with  Paul  when  he  wrote  his 
second  Epistle  to  the  church  in  that  city.**  He 
was  one  of  the  seven  distinguished  personages 
who  composed  the  apostle's  train  that  same  year, 
when  he  left  Greece  and  went  into  Asia. 

It  was  in  this  very  journey  that  Paul  sent  for 
the  elders  of  Ephesus  to  Miletum,  and  laid  upon 
them  that  solemn  charge  to  feed  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers.ft 

*  Act.  xvi.  1 — 4.  t  X''^"'  14. 

%  Act.  xviii.  5.  II  1  Thess.  i.  1.  2  Thess.  i.  1. 

§  Act.  xix.  1, 10.  2;>.  H  1  Cor.  iv.  17. 

*''2C6r.i.  1.  ft  XX.  28. 


Essays  071  Episcopacy.  203- 

Timothy  was  there,*  and  if  Bishop  of  Ephesus 
at  all,  must  have  been  appointed  either  then  or 
before.  For  as  Paul  never  saw  the  Ephesian 
brethren  afterwards,t  he  never  had  afterwards 
an  opportunity  of  ordaining  a  Bishop  over  them. 
If  Timothy  were  their  diocesan  already,  he  had 
been  very  little  with  them,  as  the  narrative  evinces. 
And  is  it  not  strange  that  the  whole  of  the  apostle's 
charge  should  be  addressed  to  the  Presbyters, 
and  not  a  syllable  to  their  Bishop,  nor  to  them  on 
their  duty  to  him  ?  On  the  other  hand,  if  he  was 
then  ordained  to  his  see,  is  not  the  silence  of  Paul 
on  the  subject  of  their  mutual  duties  equally  mys- 
terious ?  That  he  should  address  them  as  having 
the  oversight  of  the  flock ;  when  the  fact  was  that  it 
belonged  not  to  them  but  to  Timothy,  and  should 
do  this  to  their  Bishop's  face  without  recognizing 
his  pre-eminence  in  the  most  distant  manner  ? 

They  who  can  swallow  all  this,  when  they  are 
boasting  of  the  scriptural  evidence  that  Timothy 
was  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  have  a  most  happy  knack 
at  self-persuasion !  We  own  that  our  credulity 
does  not  contain  a  passage  for  so  large  a  camel ! 

But  let  us  see  what  becomes  of  Timothy.  Whe- 
ther he  constantly  attached  himself  afterwards  to 
the  person  of  Paul  we  know  not ;  but  we  do  know 
that  he  was  with  him  when  a  prisoner  at  Rome, 
anno  64,  and  shared  in  his  bonds.J 

Let  any  sober  man  look  at  this  itinerant  life  of 

•  2  Cor.  V.  5.  13.  f  v.  2.5.  38.  J  Heb.  xiii.  23. 


204  Review. 

Timothy,  and  ask  whether  his  occupations  resem- 
bled those  of  a  diocesan  Bishop  ?  Whether  there 
is  even  the  shadow  of  a  presumption  that  he  had 
a  fixed  charge  ?  And  whether  there  is  not  just  as 
good  evidence  of  his  being  Bishop  of  Berea,  of 
Corinth,  or  of  Thessalonica,  as  ofEphesus? 

Titus  is  in  the  same  situation.  In  the  first 
chapter  of  Paul's  epistle  to  him,  the  object  of  his 
stay  at  Crete  is  specified.  The  last  chapter  de- 
clares it  to  have  been  temporary ;  for  Paul  men- 
tions his  design  of  sending  another  to  take  his 
place  ;  directs  him  to  come  without  delay  to  him 
at  Nicopohs ;  and  to  bring  with  him  Zenas  and 
Apollos.*  Whence,  by  the  way,  it  is  clear  that 
Titus  had  coadjutors  in  Crete.  For  Apollos  was 
an  eloquent  preacher  of  the  gospel ;  and  in  esti- 
mation near  the  apostles  themselves.t 

On  this  point,  the  Inquirer,  in  the  collection 
under  review,  p.  132,  had  asked, 

"  Since  Paul  sent  for  Titus,  after  he  had  "  set  in  order  the 
things  that  were  wanting,"  to  come  to  Nicopolis,  took  him 
along  with  him  to  Rome,  and  then  sent  him  into  Dalmatia, 
may  not  Titus  be  properly  called  an  Evangelist;  or  atravel- 
ling  rather  than  a  diocesan  Bishop  ?" 

A  very  reasonable  and  modest  question,  one 
would  think.  But  Dr.  Hobart,  in  his  note,  calls  upon 
Bishop  Hoadley  to  shut  the  mouth  of  the  Inquirer. 

"  Let  Bishop  Hoadley  answer  this  inquiry,  and  silence  the 
only  objection  which  the  anti-Episcopalians  can  bring  against 
the  evident  superiority  of  Timothy  and  Titus  over  the  other 
•  Tit.  iii.  12,  13.  f  1  Cor.  i.  12.  ii.  6. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  205 

orders  at  Ephesus  and  Crete,  that  they  were  eztraoi-dinary  of- 
ficers ^  Evangelists,  travelling  Bishops.  '  It  is  of  small  impor- 
tance Avhether  Timothy  and  Titus  were  fixed  Bishops,  properly 
so  called  or  not.  Perhaps  at  the  first  plantation  of  churches 
there  was  no  such  necessity  affixed  Bishops  as  was  found  af- 
terwards ;  or  perhaps  at  first  the  superintendency  of  such  per- 
sons as  Timothy  and  Titus  was  thought  requisite  in  many  dif- 
ferent churches,  as  their  several  needs  required.  If  so,  their 
office  certainly  was  the  same  in  all  churches  to  which  they 
went ;  and  ordination  a  work  reserved  to  such  as  they  were, 
persons  superior  to  the  settled  Presbyters.  But  as  to  Ephe- 
sus and  Crete,  it  is  manifest  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  to 
stay  with  the  churches  there,  as  long  as  their  presence  was  riot 
more  wanted  at  other  places:  And,  besides,  if  they  did  leave 
these  churches,  there  was  as  good  reason  that  they  should  re- 
turn to  them  to  perform  the  same  office  of  ordination  when 
there  was  again  occasion,  as  there  was  at  first,  why  they  should 
be  sent  by  St.  Paul  to  that  purpose.  Nor  is  there  the  least 
footstep  in  all  antiquity,  as  far  as  it  hath  yet  appeared,  of  any 
attempt  in  the  Presbyters  of  Ephesus  or  Crete,  to  take  to  them- 
selves the  offices  appropriated  in  the  forementioned  Epistles,  to 
a  superior  order  of  men.'  Hoadley'' s  Def.  of  Episc.  ch.  i.— jEc?." 

The  anti-Episcopalians  do  not,  so  far  as  we  un- 
derstand tiiem,  deny  the  "  superiority  of  Timothy 
and  Titus  over  the  other  orders  at  Ephesus  and 
Crete."  But  they  deny  the  inferences  which  the 
jure  divino  prelatists  draw  from  that  superiority, 
viz.  1.  therefore.,  Timothy  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus, 
and  Titus  of  Crete;  and  2.  therefore  Diocesan 
Episcopacy  is  of  apostoHc  institution.  These 
things  they  deny.  They  contend  that  a  ministry 
extraordinary  and  temporary  cannot  be  a  rule  for 
a  ministry  which  is  ordinary  and  permanent — that 


206  Review 

functions  which,  hke  those  of  the  apostles  and 
evangehsts,  admitted  of  no  fixed  charges,  cannot 
be  a  model  for  a  sytem  of  fixed  charges,  as  dio- 
cesan Episcopacy  undoubtedly  is — that  the  me- 
thod pursued  in  founding  churches  is  no  precedent 
iox  governing  them  when  founded.     It  would  be,  in 
their  estimation,  quite  as  fair  and  as  reasonable, 
to  infer  the  form  of  government  prescribed  for  a 
conquered  country,  from  the  measures  adopted  by 
the  invaders  for  effecting  and  completing  the  con- 
quest.    Or  to  deduce  the  powers  and  jurisdiction 
of  the  different  departments  in  a  civil  constitution, 
from  the  powers  of  those  who  set  it  up.     This 
would  be  most   fallacious  reasoning;    and   the 
whole  world  would  agree  in  rejecting  it  as  not 
only  false  but  extremely  dangerous.   Yet  it  is  pre- 
cisely the  fallacy  of  the  Episcopal  reasoning  from 
the  powers  of  Timothy  and  Titus  to  those  of  or- 
dinary rulers  in  the  church.     No.     When  we  in- 
quire who  are  the  fixed  officers,  and  what  is  the 
fixed  order  of  the  church  ?     we  must  inquire,  not 
what  apostles  and  evangelists   did  in  executing 
their  peculiar  trust ;  but  what  officers  and  order 
they  fixed  in  the  churches  planted  by  their  care.     This, 
and  this  alone,  can  be  our  pattern.    In  the  history 
of  their  proceedings  we  have  the  most  incontes- 
table evidence  of  their  ordaining  Presbyters  in 
fixed  charges.  But  we  challenge  all  the  advocates 
for  Episcopacy  to  produce  r  single  example  of  their 
assigning  a  fixed  charge  to  any  officer  above  a 


Essai/s  on  Episcopacy.  207 

Presbyter;  or  of  their  exercising,  without  imme- 
diate inspiration  in  any  settled  church,  a  single  act 
of  power  which  they  refused  to  Presbyters.  When 
Hoadley  tells  us  that  fixed  charges  might  not  be 
so  necessary  in  those  days  as  afterwards,  he  con- 
fesses his  inability  to  prove  either  that  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  diocesan  bishops ;  or  that  dioce- 
san Episcopacy  has  an  apostolic  sanction.  For 
if  it  were  not,  as  a  system  of  fixed  charges,  ne- 
cessary then.,  the  apostles  did  not  then  establish  it. 
If  they  did  not  then  establish  it,  they  never  esta- 
blished it  at  all ;  for  it  cannot  be  pretended  that 
they  left  instructions  for  its  introduction  after- 
wards. And  if  it  was  not  then  instituted,  we  reject 
its  claim ;  if  not  then  necessary,  we  must  have 
better  authority  than  the  prelates  themselves  to 
satisfy  us  that  it  has  been  necessary  at  any  period 
since.  Hoadley,  therefore,  with  his  ifs  and  per- 
haps., instead  of  silencing  our  objection,  has  con- 
firmed it.  We  drove  the  nail,  and  my  lord  of  Win- 
chester has  most  obligingly  clenched  it.  Dr.  Ho- 
bart  has  our  permission  to  draw  it  at  his  leisure. 

We  finish  this  scrptural  view  with  observing,  that 
whatever  may  be  the  difficulty  of  Dr.  Bowden,  we 
can  see  prelates  in  England  without  going  to 
Ephesus  or  Crete  for  spectacles  :  and  that  if  no 
more  of  prelacy  had  prevailed  in  the  one,  than 
the  scriptures  show  to  have  existed  in  the  other, 
it  had  been  infinitely  better,  at  this  day,  for  the 
most  precious  interests  of  Old  England. 


208  R 


eview. 


In  an  early  stage  of  this  review,  we  joined  issue 
with  our  Episcopal  brethren  upon  a  proposition  of 
the  Layman,  viz.  "  The  question  of  Episcopacy 
is  a  question  of  fact,  to  be  determined  by  a  sound 
interpretation  of  the  sacred  volume."  We  not 
only  consented,  but  insisted,  that  the  question 
should  be  decided  by  the  scripture  alone.*  We 
closed  the  scriptural  argument  in  our  last  number, 
and  therefore,  have  closed  the  argument  upon  the 
merits  of  the  case.  God's  own  word  must  contain 
the  law  of  his  own  house.  The  idea  cannot  be 
admitted  for  a  single  moment,  that  those  master- 
principles,  without  which  there  could  be  no  Chris- 
tian order,  nor  any  system  of  instituted  worship, 
are  left  unsettled  in  the  rule  of  faith.  Whatever 
is  to  govern  our  consciences  must  have  its  foun- 
dation here,  and  a  foundation  deep  and  strong. 
We  think  we  have  demonstrated  that  the  Epis- 
copal claim  has  no  such  foundation.  Who  set  up 
the  hierarchy,  is  a  question  not  worth  the  expense 
of  a  thought,  seeing  God  has  not  appointed  it  in 
his  word.  When  we  follow  its  advocates  to  the 
ground  of  ecclesiastical  history,  we  yield  them  a 
courtesy  which  they  have  no  right  to  expect. 
The  instant  we  cross  the  line  of  inspiration,  we 
are  out  of  the  territory  where  the  only  rightful 
tribunal  is  erected,  and  where  alone  we  shall  per- 
mit ourselves  to  be  tried. 

However,  as  the  argument  which  prelacy  de- 

*  See  page 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  209 

rives  from  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  is  in  truth 
her  best  argument ;  let  us  pay  it  the  comphment 
of  an  examination.  Thus  she  states  it  from  the 
mouth  of  a  bishop  : 

"  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  primitive  Fathers 
of  the  church  must  have  been  well  acquainted  with  the  mode 
of  ecclesiastical  government  established  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  1  Now,  their  testimony  is  universally  in  our  favour. 
What  course,  then,  have  the  enemies  of  Episcopacy  for  the 
most  part  pursued  1  Why,  they  have  endeavoured  by  every 
art  of  misrepresentation  to  invalidate  this  testimony  of  the 
Fathers.  Ignatius  Avas  born  before  the  death  of  St.  John. 
Seven  of  his  Epistles  have  been  proved  by  Bishop  Pearson  to 
be  genuine,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  whole  learned  world.  In 
these  Epistles  lie  repeatedly  mentions  the  three  orders  of  Bi- 
shops, Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  and  speaks  of  the  order  of 
Bishops  as  necessary  in  .the  constitution  of  every  Christian 
church.  All  this  has  been  done  ;  and  still,  the  Presbyterian 
teachers  mislead  the  people,  by  artfully  insinuating  that  none 
of  the  writings  are  genuine  which  go  under  the  name  of  Ig- 
natius. Another  artful  method  pursued  by  our  opponents  is 
to  collect  all  the  errors  into  which  the  Fathers  have  fallen, 
with  respect  to  particular  points  of  doctrine ;  to  paint  these 
errors  in  the  blackest  colours  ;  and  when  they  have  thus  pre- 
judiced the  minds  of  the  people  against  them,  boldly  to  go  on 
to  the  preposterous  conclusion,  that  the  testimony  of  these 
Fathers  is  not  to  be  regarded  when  they  stand  forth  as  wit- 
nesses to  a  matter  of  fact.  But  is  this  fair  dealing?  May  not 
a  man  of  sincerity  and  truth  be  liable  to  errors,  as  to  matters 
of  opinion  ;  and  still  be  a  true  witness,  as  to  things  which  he 
has  seen  and  heard  ? 

"  Pursuing  the  usual  mode  of  artful  misrepresentation,  our 
Miscellanist  has  endeavoured  to  represent  Jerome  as  favouring 
the  Presbyterian  scheme  of  church  government ;  and  with  the 

Vol.  111.    '  27 


210  Review. 

same  spirit,  he  abuses  the  church  of  England  as  too  nearly 
bordering  on  Popery.  After  seeing  what  has  been  pubhshed 
on  these  subjects,  if  your  opponent  has  any  spark  of  modesty 
remaining  in  his  bosom,  he  will  never  produce  the  testimony 
of  Jerome  in  support  of  his  cause."* 

Thus,  from  the  mouth  of  a  priest : 

"  Here  let  me  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  every  unpre- 
judiced reader,  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  the  following 
proposition. 

"  If  we  had  only  obscure  hints  given  us  in  scripture  of  the 
institution  of  this  form  of  government  by  the  Apostles,  and  if 
at  a  very  early  period — as  soon  as  any  distinct  mention  is  at  all 
made  of  the  subject,  this  appears  to  be  the  only  form  of  govern- 
ment existing  in  the  church,  have  we  not  the  strongest  possible 
presumption,  have  we  not  absolute  demonstration,  that  it  was 
of  Apostolic  original  1  Who  were  so  likely  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  intentions,  with  the  practices,  with  the  institutions  of 
the  Apostles,  as  their  immediate  successors  ?  If,  then,  we  should 
admit  for  a  moment,  (and  really  it  is  almost  too  great  an  out- 
rage against  sound  reasoning,  to  be  admitted  even  for  a  mo- 
ment ;)  I  say,  if  we  should  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  "  the  Classical  or  Presbyterial  form  of  church  government 
was  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,"  at  what  period  was 
the  Episcopal  introduced  1  When  did  this  monstous  innova- 
tion upon  primitive  order  find  its  way  into  the  church  of  Christ? 
At  what  period  did  the  Bishops  make  the  bold  and  successful 
attempt  of  exalting  themselves  into  "  lords  in  God's  heritage." 
These  are  questions  which  the  advocates  of  parity  have  never 
yet  been  able  to  answer,  which  they  never  will  be  able  to  an- 
swer. They  tell  us,  indeed,  of  a  change  that  must  have  taken 
place  at  an  early  period,  that  Episcopacy  is  a  corrupt  inno- 
vation ;  but  they  can  produce  no  proof  on  which  to  ground 
these  bold  assertions.     They  are  countenanced,  in  these  as- 

f  Cornelius,  Collec.  p.  135- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  211 

sertions,  by  none  of  the  records  of  these  times  that  have  been 
transmitted  to  us.  It  is  a  mere  conjecture,  a  creature  of  the 
imagination.  It  is  conjectured  that  this  change  took  place 
immediately  after  the  Apostolic  age.  It  must  be  that  this 
change  took  place,  or  Presbyterian  principles  cannot  be 
maintained.  Thus  a  mere  conjecture  on  their  part  is  to  over- 
balance the  most  solid  and  substantial  proofs  on  ours.  In  order 
to  follow  these  aerial  adventurers  in  their  excursions,  we  are  to 
desert  the  broad  and  solid  bottom  of  facts,  and  launch  into  the 
regions  of  hypothesis  and  uncertainty. 

"  We  say,  then,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  well  remembered,  that 
from  the  earliest  information  which  is  given  us  concerning  the 
institutions  and  usages  of  the  Christian  church,  it  undeniably 
appears,  that  there  existed  in  it  the  three  distinct  orders  of  Bi- 
shops, Presbyters,  and  Deacons.  We  say,  that  this  circum- 
stance amounts  to  demonstrative  evidence,  that  these  three 
orders  were  of  divine  institution — were  of  Apostolic  appoint- 
ment."— "  But  we  do  not  stop  here.  We  maintain  that  to 
suppose  the  form  of  government  in  the  church  of  Christ  to 
have  been  so  fundamentally  altered  at  this  time,  is  the  wildest 
imagination  that  ever  entered  into  the  head  of  man.  Let  us 
contemplate  the  circumstances  of  this  case. 

"  It  is  supposed  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  instituted 
originally  but  one  order  of  ministers  in  his  church,  equal  in 
dignity  and  authority.  It  is  i?)Wgined,  that  immediately  after 
their  death,  a  number  of  aspiring  individuals  abolished  this 
primitive  arrangement,  elevated  themselves  to  supreme  autho- 
rity in  the  church  of  Christ.  Concerning  the  time  at  which 
this  innovation  was  effected,  the  advocates  of  Presbyterianism 
are  by  no  means  agreed.  The  most  learned  among  themj 
however,  admit  that  it  must  have  taken  place  before  the  mid- 
dle of  the  second  century,  about  fo7-ti/  or  fifty  years  after  the 
times  of  the  Apostles.  Blondkl  allows  that  Episcopacy  was 
the  established  government  of  the  church  within  forty  years 
after  the  Apostolic  age.     Bocuart  assigns  as  the  period  of  its 


212  Review. 

origin,  the  age  that  immediately  succeeded  the  Apostles.  He 
says  it  arose,  paulo  post  Apostolos.  Salmasius  even  allows 
that  this  government  prevailed  in  the  church  before  the  death 
of  the  last  of  the  Apostles.  And,  in  fact,  this  is  the  only 
period  at  which  it  can  be  supposed  to  have  originated  with 
any  degree  of  plausibility.  It  shall  be  my  task  to  show  that 
it  is  altogether  improbable,  that  it  is  almost  impossible,  that 
any  innovation  upon  primitive  order  and  discipUne  could  have 
been  effectuated  at  this  early  period. 

"  Within  forty  years  after  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  we  are 
told,  that  the  Bishops,  by  a  bold  and  successful  effort,  tram- 
pled upon  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Clergy,  and  elevated 
themselves  to  the  chair  of  supreme  authority  !  What !  Those 
who  were  the  immediate  successors  of  the  Apostles — those 
who  had  received  from  these  miraculous  men  the  words  of 
eternal  truth,  the  institutions  of  God's  own  appointment — so 
soon  forget  the  reverence  and  duty  which  they  owed  them — 
so  soon,  with  a  rash  and  impious  hand,  strike  away  the  foun- 
dation of  those  venerable  structures  which  they  had  erected ! 
Would  they  not  permit  the  Apostles  to  be  cold  in  their  graves 
before  they  began  to  undermine  and  demolish  their  sacred 
establishments'?  Would  such  iniquitous  proceedings  have  been 
possible  with  men  who  exhibited,  on  all  occasions,  the  warm- 
est attachment  to  their  Saviour,  and  to  all  his  institutions "? 
Will  it  be  imagined  that  the  good  Ignatius,  the  venerable 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  he  who  triumphantly  avowed  that  he  dis- 
regarded the  pains  of  martyrdom,  so  that  he  could  but  attain 
to  the  presence  of  Jesus  Christ — Avill  it  be  imagined  that  he 
entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  overthrow  that  government  which 
his  Saviour  had  established  in  his  church  1  Would  the  illus- 
trious Polycarp,  the  pride  and  ornament  of  the  churches  of 
Asia,  have  engaged  in  the  execution  of  so  foul  an  enterprise — 
he,  who,  when  commanded  to  blaspheme  Christ,  exclaimed, 
"  Four-score  and  six  years  have  I  served  him,  and  he  never 
did  me  any  harm  ;  how,  then,  shall  1  blaspheme  my  King 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  213 

and  my  Saviour  1"  Iii  short,  can  all  the  pious  Fathers  tliat 
succeeded  these,  be  supposed  to  have  co-operated  in  perfect- 
ing the  atrocious  work  which  they  had  begun  1  These  things 
will  not  be  credited. 

"  But  even  supposing  that  these  pious  men,  whose  meek 
and  unaspiring  temper  renders  it  altogether  incredible  that 
they  made  any  such  sacrilegious  attempt,  were  inclined  to 
obtain  this  pre-eminence  in  the  church  ;  can  it  be  imagined, 
that  the  remaining  Presbyters  would  have  tvitnessed  these 
daring  usurpations  with  indiffereiicc  ?  Would  they  have  made 
no  effort  to  save  themselves  and  their  brethren  from  the  con- 
trol of  so  undue  and  illegitimate  an  authority  1  Could  none 
be  found  amongst  them  possessed  of  so  much  zeal  in  the  ser- 
vice of  their  divine  master,  so  ardently  attached  to  his  holy 
institutions,  as  to  induce  them  to  resist  such  a  bold  and  im- 
pious attempt  1  In  short,  would  not  such  an  attempt  by  a  few 
Presbyters,  according  to  the  uniform  course  of  things,  neces- 
sarily have  agitated  and  convulsed  the  church?  Would  not  the 
period  of  such  an  innovation  have  become  a  marked  and  pe- 
culiar era  in  her  existence  ?  Can  the  advocates  of  parity  show 
any  thing  in  the  history  of  man  analagous  to  their  supposed 
change  in  ecclesiastical  government  at  this  time  1  Could  ever 
such  a  radical  and  important  alteration  have  been  produced  in 
any  government,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  without  being  accom- 
panied by  violence  and  convulsion  ?  We  find  that  the  congre- 
gations, at  this  time,  were  extremely  jealous  of  the  authority 
that  was  exercised  over  them.  This  jealousy  made  its  appear- 
ance even  during  the  times  of  the  Apostles.  Some  took  it 
upon  themselves  to  call  in  question  the  authority  of  St.  Paul, 
others  that  of  St.  John.  From  the  Epistle  of  Clemens  to  the 
Corinthians,  it  would  seem  as  if  some  disorders  had  arisen 
amongst  them  from  a  similar  source.  Is  it  to  be  supposed 
then  that  any  number  of  Presbyters  would  have  dared,  would 
have  proved  successful  had  they  dared,  to  endeavour  to  accu- 
mulate in  their  hands  such  undue  authoritv  as  that  which  was 


214  Hevieiv. 

claimed  by  Bishops  1  And  even  if  we  should  allow  thftt  a 
few  Presbyters  might  in  some  places  have  had  the  talents  and 
address  to  elevate  themselves  to  this  superiority  over  their 
brethren,  is  it  probable,  is  it  possible,  that  this  took  place  at 
the  same  time  over  the  universal  church  1  Can  such  a  singular 
coincidence  of  circumstances  be  reasonably  imagined  ?  The 
church  had,  at  this  time,  widely  extended  herself  over  the  Ro- 
man empire.  Did,  then,  the  churches  of  Africa,  of  Asia,  of 
Europe,  by  a  miraculous  unanimity  of  opinion,  enter  at  the 
same  moment  into  the  determination  to  change  their  form  of 
government  from  the  Presbyterial  to  the  Episcopal  ?  I  will 
not  do  so  much  discredit  to  the  understanding  of  any  reader 
as  to  imagine  that  he  does  not  at  once  perceive  the  inadmis- 
sibihty  and  the  absurdity  of  such  a  supposition. 

"  Let  us,  however,  suppose  the  most  that  our  adversaries 
can  desire.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  primitive  rulers  of  the 
church  were  destitute  of  principle.  Let  us  suppose  them  de- 
void of  attachment  to  the  institutions  of  Christ.  Let  us  sup- 
pose that  they  waited  every  opportunity  to  promote  their  own 
aggrandizement.  Let  us  suppose  the  difficulties  removed  that 
opposed  them  in  their  ascent  towards  the  chair  of  Episcopal 
authority.  What  was  there,  at  this  period,  in  the  office  of 
Bishop  to  excite  their  desires,  or  to  invite  their  exertions  to 
obtain  it  1  The  veneration  attached  to  it,  as  yet,  extended  no 
farther  than  to  the  family  of  the  faithful.  The  cliurch  was 
on  all  hands  encountered  by  the  bitterest  enemies.  By  ele- 
vating themselves,  therefore,  to  the  pre-eminence  of  Bishops, 
they  only  raised  themselves  to  pre-eminence  in  difficulties,  in 
dangers,  in  deaths.  Their  blood  was  always  the  first  that  was 
drunk  by  the  sword  of  persecution.  Their  station  only  ex- 
posed them  to  more  certain  and  more  horrid  deaths.  Was 
an  office  of  this  kind  an  object  of  cupidity  %  Is  it  to  be  sup- 
posed that  great  exertions  would  be  made,  many  difficulties 
encountered,  to  obtain  it  ?  But  I  need  say  no  more  on  this 
part  of  the  subject. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  215 

"  The  idea  that  an  alteration  took  place  at  this  time  in  the 
form  of  government  originally  established  in  the  church  of 
Christ,  is  altogether  unsupported  by  any  proof. 

"  It  is  proved  to  be  unfounded  by  unnumbered  considera- 
tions."* 

After  hearing  the  bishop  and  the  priest,  let  us 
hear  also  the  Layman : 

"  Calvin  found  the  whole  Christian  world  in  possession  of 
the  Episcopal  form  of  government.  The  most  learned  sup- 
porters of  the  opposite  doctrine  scruple  not  to  admit  that 
Bishops  existed,  universally,  in  the  church,  as  distinct  from, 
and  superior  to,  Presbyters,  within  forty  or  fifty  years  after 
the  last  of  the  Apostles.  Such  is  the  concession  of  Blondel, 
of  Salmasius,  of  BocJiartus,  of  Baxter,  of  Doddridge.  Some 
of  them,  indeed,  carry  it  up  to  a  much  earlier  period  ;  Salma- 
sius going  so  far  as  to  admit  that  Episcopacy  prevailed  shortly 
after  the  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter,  and  long  before  the 
death  of  St.  John. 

"  It  is  surely  incumbent  on  those  who  advocate  a  form  of 
government  admitted  to  be  thus  new,  and  thus  opposed  to  the 
early,  universal,  and  uninterrupted  practice  of  the  church,  to 
give  us  the  most  convincing  and  unequivocal  proof  of  the  di- 
vinity of  their  system.  More  especially  when  it  is  i-ecollected 
that  they  can  produce  no  record  of  a  change  ;  but  are  obliged 
to  imagine  one,  in  opposition  to  the  uniform  testimony  of  the 
primitive  fathers  of  the  church.  The  age  in  which  they  sup- 
pose a  change  to  have  taken  place  was  a  learned  age,  abound- 
ing in  authors  of  the  first  eminence.  The  most  minute  events 
are  recorded,  and  yet  not  a  word  is  said  of  the  revolution, 
which  some  men  talk  of,  so  fundamental  in  its  nature,  and  so 
interesting  in  its  consequences.  The  change,  too,  which  they 
imagine,  must  have  been  both  instantaneous  and  universal ; 
and  this  at  a  time  when  there  were  no  Christian  princes  to 

"  Cyprian,  No.  V.  Colhc.  p.  144—147. 


216  Review. 

promote  it ;  when  no  general  council  had  met,  or  could  meet 
to  establish  it ;  and  when  the  fury  of  persecution  cut  off  all 
intercourse  between  distant  churches ;  leaving  their  Clergy, 
also,  something  else  to  attend  to  than  projects  of  usurpation. 
Such  are  the  strange  and  almost  incredible  absurdities  into 
which  men  will  run,  rather  than  give  up  a  system  to  which 
they  have  become  wedded  by  educaton  and  by  habit."* 

The  sum  of  the  foregoing  argument  is  this  : 

"  Immediately  after  the  death  of  the  apostles, 
the  ivhole  Christian  icorld  was  Episcopal,  and  re- 
mained so,  without  interruption,  or  question,  for 
fifteen  hundred  years — that  no  cause  short  of 
Apostolic  institution,  can,  with  any  show  of  rea- 
son, be  assigned  for  such  an  effect — that  it  is 
absurd  to  suppose  a  sudden,  universal,  and  suc- 
cessful conspiracy,  to  change  the  primitive  order 
of  the  church — and  therefore,  that  Episcopacy  is, 
at  least,  of  apostohc  origin." 

Contracted  into  a  more  regular  form,  the  argu- 
ment stands  thus  : 

That  order  which  the  church  universal  possess- 
ed at,  or  shortly  after,  the  death  of  the  apostles,  is 
the  order  which  they  established  and  left : 

But  the  order  of  the  church  universal,  at,  or 
shortly  after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  was  Epis- 
copal: 

Therefore,  Episcopacy  is  the  order  established 
by  the  Apostles. 

This  reasoning  appears,  at  first  sight,  to  be  con- 
clusive.    It  certainly  ought  to  be  so,  considering 

♦  Layman,  No.  VII.  Colkc.  p.  99. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  217 

the  interests  which  depend  upon  it,  and  the 
triumph  with  which  it  is  brought  forward.  Never- 
theless, we  more  than  suspect  a  fallacy  in  the  rea- 
soning itself,  and  an  errour  in  the  assumption 
upon  which  it  confessedly  relies. 

Supposing  the  fact  to  have  been,  as  our  Epis- 
copal friends  say  it  was,  viz.  that  the  accounts  of 
the  state  of  tlie  Christian  church  after  the  death  of 
the  apostles,  represent  her,  without  an  exception, 
as  under  Episcopal  organization,  we  should  still 
impeach  the  conclusion  that  Episcopacy  was  esta- 
blished by  the  apostles.  We  acknowledge,  that, 
upon  our  principles,  the  phenomenon  would  be  ex- 
traordinary, and  the  difficulty  great  So  great,  that 
did  there  exist  no  other  records  of  the  first  con- 
stitution of  the  church,  than  the  testimony  of  the 
primitive  fathers  ;  and  did  this  testimony  declare 
her  to  have  been  Episcopal,  as  that  term  is  now 
understood,  there  could  be,  in  our  apprehension, 
no  dispute  about  the  matter.  Common  sense 
would  instruct  us  to  decide  according  to  the  best 
evidence  we  could  get :  that  evidence  would  be 
altogether  in  favour  of  the  Episcopal  claim,  which, 
therefore,  no  man  in  his  senses,  would  think  of 
disputing.  We  say,  such  would  be  the  result  were 
the  testimony  of  the  fathers  correctly  stated  by  the 
hierarchy  ;  and  had  we  no  other  documents  or  records 
to  consult.  But  we  have  other  and  better  testi- 
mony than  that  of  the  Fathers.  We  have  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Apostles  themselves :  We  have 
Vol.  ill.  28 


218  JR, 


eview. 


their  own  authentic  records :  We  have  the  very 
instrument  in  which  the  ascended  Head  of  the 
church  has  written  her  ivhole  charter  with  the  finger 
of  his  unerring  Spirit :  We  have  the  New  Testa- 
ment. This  charter  we  have  examined.  We 
have  minutely  discussed  the  parts  upon  which  our 
opponents  rely:  we  have  compared  them  with 
other  parts  of  the  same  instrument,  and  we  have 
proved  that  Episcopacy  is  not  there.  Admitting 
then,  what,  however,  we  do  not  admit,  that  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers  to  Episcopacy  is  precise 
and  full,  it  would  be  nothing  to  us.  They  must 
testify  one  of  two  things  ,•  either  that  the  plan  of 
the  hierarchy  is  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament ; 
or  simply  that  it  existed  in  their  days.  The  for- 
mer would  refer  to  the  written  w^ord  which  we  can 
understand  as  well  as  themselves,  if  not  much 
better ;  so  that  we  should  not  take  their  assertion 
for  our  interpretation.  The  latter  could  only  fur- 
nish us  with  a  subject  worthy  of  investigation;  but 
could  not  be  a  sohd  foundation  for  so  splendid 
and  ponderous  a  superstructure  as  the  Episcopal 
hierarchy.  Were  the  language  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament ambiguous  throughout :  did  it  contain  no 
interna]  principles  of  satisfactory  exposition :  were 
it,  (which  would  render  it  a  miraculous  equivoque,) 
were  it  equally  adapted  to  an  Episcopal,  or  an 
Anti-episcopal,  order ;  in  this  event,  too,  the  testi- 
mony of  the  fathers  would  turn  the  balance.  But 
as  neither  its  language  nor  its  facts  can  be  made. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  219 

without  negligence  or  violence,  to  accord  with  the 
institutions  of  the  hierarchy,  she  is  not  at  liberty 
to  set  off  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  against  that 
of  the  scripture ;  and  to  infer  that  she  is  of  apos- 
tohcal  extraction,  merely  because  she  was  found 
in  being  after  her  pretended  spiritual  progenitors 
were  dead.  It  never  can  be  tolerated  as  sound 
reasoning  to  determine  the  meaning  of  a  law  from 
certain  observances  which  are  to  be  tried  by  the 
law  itself;  and,  by  inference  from  extraneous  facts  ^ 
to  establish,  as  law,  a  point  which  the  law  does 
not  acknowledge.  A  question  is  at  issue,  whether 
Episcopacy  is  of  apostolic  authority  or  not.  The 
law  of  God's  house,  penned  by  the  apostles  them- 
selves, is  produced ;  and  the  verdict,  upon  trial, 
is  for  the  negative.  The  Episcopal  counsel  ap- 
peals to  the  Fathers  ;  they  depose,  he  says,  that 
Episcopacy  was  in  actual  existence,  throughout 
the  Christian  community,  a  little  while  after  the 
death  of  the  Apostles  ;  and  he  insists  that  this  fact 
shall  regulate  the  construction  of  the  Christian  law. 
"  By  no  means ;"  replies  the  counsel  on  the 
other  side.  "  We  accuse  Episcopacy  of  corrvpting 
the  Christian  institutions ;  and  her  counsel  pleads 
the  early  existence  of  her  alleged  crime,  as  a  proof 
of  her  having  conformed  to  the  will  of  the  Law- 
giver ;  and  that  the  fact  of  her  having  committed 
it  from  nearly  the  time  of  promulging  the  law,  is 
a  demonstration  that  the  law  not  only  allows  but 
enjoins  the  deed  ! !"' 


220  Review. 

The  United  States  are  a  republic,  with  a  single 
executive  periodically  chosen.  Suppose  that  three 
hundred  years  hence  they  should  be  under  the 
reign  of  a  hereditary  monarch  ;  and  the  question 
should  then  be  started  whether  this  was  the  ori- 
ginal order  or  not  ?  Those  who  favour  the 
negative  go  back  to  the  written  constitution, 
framed  in  1787,  and  show  that  a  hereditary  mo- 
narchy was  never  contemplated  in  that  instru- 
ment. Others  contend  that  "  The  expressions  of 
the  constitution  are  indefinite;  there  are  some 
things,  indeed,  which  look  a  little  republican-like, 
and  might  be  accommodated  to  the  infant  state  of 
the  nation  ;  but  whoever  shall  consider  the  pur- 
poses of  the  order  therein  prescribed,  and  the  na- 
ture of  the  powers  therein  granted,  will  clearly  per- 
ceive that  the  one  cannot  be  attained,  nor  the 
other  exercised,  but  in  a  hereditary  monarchy." 
Well,  the  constitution  is  produced;  it  is  examined 
again  and  again;  but  no  hereditary  monarchy 
is  recognized  there;  it  breathes  repubhcanism 
throughout :  What,  now,  would  be  thought  of  a 
man,  who  should  gravely  answer,  "  The  concur- 
rent testimony  of  all  the  historians  of  those  times 
is,  that  at,  or  very  shortly  after,  the  death  of  the 
members  of  the  convention  of  1787,  monarchy 
prevailed  throughout  the  United  States  ;  and  this 
is  proof  positive,  that  it  was  established  by  the 
convention." 

"  Nay,"  would  the  first  rejoin,  "  your  facts  are 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  221 

of  no  avail.  The  question  is,  not  what  prevailed 
after  the  constitution  was  adopted :  but  what  is 
the  constitution  itself?  There  it  is  :  let  it  argue 
its  own  cause." 

"  But,"  says  the  other,  "  how  could  so  great  a 
change,  as  that  from  a  repubhc  to  a  monarchy, 
happen  in  so  short  a  time  ?  and  that  without  re- 
sistance, or,  what  is  still  more  astonishing,  with- 
out notice  ?" 

"You  may  settle  that, «  retorts  the  first,"  at  your 
leisure.  That  there  has  been  a  material  change, 
I  see  as  clearly  as  the  hght :  hoiv  that  change  was 
effected,  is  none  oi^my  concern.  It  is  enough  for 
me  that  the  constitution,  fairly  interpreted,  knows 
nothing  of  the  existing  monarchy." 

Every  child  can  perceive  who  would  have  the 
best  of  this  argument ;  and  it  is  just  such  an  argu- 
ment as  we  are  managing  with  the  Episcopahans. 
Granting  them  all  they  ask  concerning  the  testi- 
mony of  the  fathers,  their  conclusion  is  "  good  for 
nothing,"  because  it  concludes,  as  we  have  abun- 
dantly shown,  against  the  New  Testament  itself 
It  is  vain  to  declaim  upon  the  improbability  and 
impossibility  of  so  sudden  and  universal  a  transi- 
tion from  Presbytery  to  Episcopacy,  as  they  main- 
tain must  have  taken  place  upon  our  plan.  The 
revolution  would  have  been  very  extraordinary,  we 
confess.  But  many  very  extraordinary  thmgs  are 
very  true.  All  that  the  hierarchy  gains  by  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers,  even  when  we  allow  her 


222  Review. 

to  state  it  in  her  own  way,  is  an  extraordinary 
fact  which  she  cannot  explain  for  herself;  and, 
therefore,  insists  that  we  shall  explain  it,  or  else 
bow  the  knee.  We  excuse  ourselves.  We  are 
not  compelled  to  the  latter,  and  we  a?;e  under  no 
obligation  to  the  former.  The  controversy  must 
perpetually  return  to  a  simple  issue,  viz.  Whether 
Episcopacy  and  the  New  Testament  agree  or  not .'' 
We  have  proved,  as  we  think,  that  they  are  irre- 
concileable.  This  is  enough.  Here  is  the  New 
Testament  on  one  side,  and  the  hierarchy  on  the 
other.  Conceding  that  she  had  very  early  pos- 
session of  the  church,  what  follows  }  Nothing  but 
that  order  of  the  church  was  very  early  corrupted  ! 
Whether  we  can  or  cannot  trace  the  steps  and  fix 
the  date  of  this  corruption,  does  not  alter  the 
case.  Corruption  is  corruption  still.  If  we  can 
tell  nothing  about  the  rise  of  the  hierarchy,  our 
ignorance  does  not  destroy  its  contrariety  to  the 
scripture.  If  we  could  ascertain  the  very  hour  of 
its  rise,  the  discovery  would  not  increase  that 
contrariety.  Our  ignorance  and  our  knowledge 
on  this  subject  leave  the  original  question  exactly 
where  they  found  it.  A  thousand  volumes  may  be 
written ;  and  after  all,  the  final  appeal  must  be 
"  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony." 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  should  we  even  ac- 
quiesce in  the  account  which  our  episcopal  bre- 
thren give  of  the  primitive  testimony,  we  are 
justified  in  denying  their  conclusion :  seeing  that 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  223 

all  inferences  against  tlie  decision  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament itself,  are  necessarily  invalid  and  false,  be 
the  facts  from  which  they  are  deduced  ever  so 
many,  ever  so  strong,  or  ever  so  indisputable. 

But  although,  in  our  own  opinion,  the  ground 
on  which  the  prelatists  have  chosen  to  make  their 
principal  stand,  aftbrds  them  so  little  advantage 
as  not  to  repay  the  trouble  of  dislodging  them,  we 
shall,  for  the  sake  of  their  further  satisfaction, 
proceed  to  do  them  this  service  also. 

They  have  heaped  assertion  upon  assertion, 
that  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  church  is  uni- 
versally  in  their  favour ;  so  explicitly  and  decisively 
in  their  favour,  that  if  Episcopacy  had  not  been 
instituted  by  apostohc  authority,  the  whole  Chris- 
tian church  must  suddenly  have  changed  her  gov- 
ernment from  one  end  of  the  world  to  the  other, 
without  any  adequate  cause,  and  without  any  op- 
portunity of  previous  concert.* 

When  our  opponents  talk  of  the  early  and  gene- 
ral prevalence  of  episcopacy,  they  must  mean 
episcopacy  as  embraced  by  themselves^  i.  e.  as  restrict- 
ing the  power  of  ordination  and  government  to  the 
superior  order  of  clergy  called  bishops  ;  or  else  they 
are  fighting  for  a  shadow. 

We  deny  their  representation  and  shall  prove 
it  to  be  false.t 

*  See  the  foregoing  extracts. 

t  We  cannot  forbear  remarking,  by  the  way,  a  striking  coinci- 
dence between  the  popish  and  the  episcopal  melliod  of  defence. 


224  Review. 

More  than  fourteen  hundred  years  ago  the  supe- 
riority of  the  Prelates  to  Presbyters  was  attacked, 
in  the  most  direct  and  open  manner,  as  having  no 
authority  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  ban- 
ner of  opposition  was  raised  not  by  a  mean  and 
obscure  declaimer;  but  by  a  most  consummate 
Theologian.     •'  By  one  who,  in  the  judgment  of 

When  they  begin  to  feel  themselves  pressed,  they  betake  them- 
selves to  the  scriptures  ;  but  finding  themselves  hard  pushed  here, 
they  retreat  to  the  fathers.  There  is  scarcely  a  peculiarity  of 
popery  for  which  some  papal  polemics  do  not  pretend  to  have  their 
sanction.     Take  a  sample. 

"They  of  your"  (the  protestant)  "side,  that  have  read  the  fa- 
thers of  that  unspotted  church,  can  well  testify  (and  if  any  deny 
it,  it  shall  be  presently  shown)  that  the  Doctors,  Pastors,  and 
Fathers  of  that  church  do  allow  of  traditions ;  that  they  acknow- 
ledge the  real  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  of 
the  altar :  that  they  exhorted  the  people  to  confess  their  sins  unto 
their  ghostly  fathers  :  that  they  affirmed,  that  Priests  have  power 
to  forgive  sins :  that  they  taught,  that  there  is  a  purgatory :  that 
prayer  for  the  dead  is  both  commendable  and  godly  :  that  there  is 
Limbus  Patrum ;  and  that  our  Saviour  descended  into  hell,  to  de- 
liver the  ancient  fathers  of  the  Old  Testament ;  because  before  his 
passion  none  ever  entered  into  heaven ;  that  prayer  to  saints  and 
use  of  holy  images  was  of  great  account  amongst  them  :  that  man 
had  free-will,  and  that  for  his  meritorious  works  he  receiveth, 
through  the  assistance  of  God's  grace,  the  bliss  of  everlasting  hap- 
piness. 

"  Now  would  I  fain  know  whether  of  both  have  the  true  Reli- 
gion, they  that  hold  all  these  above  said  points,  with  the  primitive 
Church  ;  or  they  that  do  most  vehemently  contradict  and  gainsay 
them  ?  They  that  do  not  disagree  with  that  holy  church  in  any 
point  of  religion;  or  they  that  agree  with  it  but  in  very  few,  and 
disagree  in  almost  all  ? 

"Will  you  say,  that  these  fathers  maintained  these  opinions, 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God  ?    Why  you  know  that  they  were 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  225 

«  Erasmus,  was,  without  controversy,  by  far  the 
most  learned  and  most  eloquent  of  all  the  Chris- 
tians ;  and  the  prince  of  Christian  Divines."*  By 
the  illustrious  JEROME-t 

Thus  he  lays  down  both  doctrine  and  fact  rela- 
tive to  the  government  of  the  church,  in  his  com- 
mentary on  Titus  1.  5. 

the  pillars  of  Christianity,  the  champions  of  Christ  his  church, 
and  of  the  true  Catholic  religion,  which  they  most  learnedly  de- 
fended against  diverse  heresies ;  and  therefore  spent  all  their  time 
in  a  most  serious  study  of  the  holy  scripture.  Or  will  you  say, 
that  although  they  knew  the  scriptures  to  repugn,  yet  they  brought 
in  the  aforesaid  opinions  by  malice  and  corrupt  intentions  ?  Why 
yourselves  cannot  deny,  but  that  they  lived  most  holy  and  virtuous 
lives,  free  from  all  malicious  corrupting,  or  perverting  of  God's 
holy  word,  and  by  their  holy  lives  are  now  made  worthy  to  reign 
with  God  in  his  glory.  Insomuch  as  their  admirable  learning 
may  sufficiently  cross  out  all  suspicion  of  ignorant  error;  and  their 
innocent  sanctity  freeth  us  from  all  mistrust  of  malicious  corrup- 
tion."    Challenge  of  a  Jesuit  to  BishojJ  Usher. 

In  the  course  of  his  full  and  elaborate  answer  to  this  challenge. 
Usher  quotes  Cardinal  Bellarrnine  as  one  "  who  would  face  us  down 
that  all  the  ancients  both  Greek  and  Latin,  from  the  very  time  of  the 
Apostles,  did  constantly  teach  that  there  was  a  purgatory.  Where- 
as," replies  Usher,  "  his  own  partners  could  tell  him  in  his  ear, 
that  in  the  ancient  writers  there  is  almost  7io  mention  of  purgatory ; 
especially  in  the  Greek  writers."  Usher's  Answer,  Sfc.  p.  170,  4to. 
1625. 

For  "Purgatory,"  put  "Episcopacy,"  and  you  will  see  pretty 
nearly  how  the  account  stands  between  eminent  Episcopalians 
themselves. 

*  We  quote  the  words  of  one  who  was  assuredly  uo  friend  to 
our  cause,  vid.  Cave,  His.  Litt.  Script:  Eccles.  p.  171.  Ed. 
1720.  Fol. 

t  Prosper,  who  was  nearly  his  cotemporary,  calls  him  magisfer 
mundi:  i.  e.  the  teacher  of  the  world.     lb. 

Vol.  III.  29 


226  Review. 

That  thou   shouldest  ordain    Presbyters    in  every 
city^  as  I  had  appointed  thee* — "  What  sort  of  Pres- 

*  "  Qui  qualis  Presbyter  debeat  ordinari,  in  consequentibus  dis- 
serens  hoc  ait:  Si  qui  est  sine  crimine,  uuius  uxoris  vir,"  et  cae- 
tera  :  postea  intulit,  "  Oportet.  n.  Episcopum  sine  crimine  esse, 
tanquam  Dei  dispeusatorera."  Idem  est  ergo  Presbyter,  qui  et 
Episcopus,  et  antequam  diaboli  instinctu,  stadia  in  religione  fierent, 
et  dieeretur  in  populis  :  "  Ego  sum  Pauli,  ego  Apollo,  ego  autetn 
Cephse  :"  communi  Preshyterorum  consilio  ecclesiae  gubernaban- 
tur,  Postquam  vero  unusquisque  eos,  quos  baptizaverat,  suos  pu- 
tabat  esse,  non  Christi :  in  toto  orbe  decretum  est,  ut  umis  de  Pres- 
hyteris  electus  swperjjoneretur  ceeteris,  ad  quern  omnis  ecclesia  eura 
pertineret,  et  schismatum  semina  tollerentur.  Putet  aliquis  non 
scripturarum,  sed  nostram,  esse  sententiam  Episcopum  et  Presby- 
terum  unum  esse  ;  et  aliud  setatis,  aliud  esse  nomeu  officii :  relegat 
Apostoli  ad  Philippenses  verba  dicentis  :  Paulus  et  Timotheus 
servi  Jesu  Christi,  omnibus  Sanctis  in  Christo  Jesu,  qui  sunt  Phihp- 
pis,  cum  Episcopis  et  Diaconis,  gratia  vobis  et  pax,  et  reliqua. 
Philippi  una  est  urbs  Macedoniae,  et  certe  in  una  civitate  flutes  ut 
nuncupantur,  Episcopi  esse  non  poterant.  Sed  quia  eosdem  Episco- 
pos  illo  tempore  quos  et  Preshyleros  appellabant,  propterea  indiffe- 
reuter  de  Episcopis  quasi  de  Presbyteris  est  locutus.  Adhuc  hoc 
alicui  videatur  ambiguum,  nisi  altero  testimouio  comprobetur.  In 
Actibus  Apostolorum  scriptum  est,  quod  cum  veuisset  Apostolus 
Miletum,  raiserit  Ephesum,  et  vocaverit  Presbyteros  ecclesiae  ejus- 
dem,  quibus  postea  inter  caetera  sit  locutus  ;  attendite  vobis,  et  omni 
gregi  in  quo  vos  Spiritus  sanctus  posuit  Episcopos,  pascere  ecclesiam 
Domini  quam  acquisivit  per  sanguinem  suum.  Et  hoc  diligentius 
observate,  quo  modo  unius  civitatis  Ephesi  Presbyteros  vocans, 
postea  eosdem  Episcopos  dixerit. — H2ec  propterea,  ut  ostenderemus 
apud  veteres  eosdem  fuisse  Presbyteros  quos  et  Episcopos.  Pau- 
latim  vero,  ut  dissensionum  plantaria  evellerentur,  ad  unum  omnem 
solicitudinem  esse  delatam. — Sicut  ergo  Presbyteri  sciunt  se  ex  ec- 
clesice  consuetudine  ei,  qui  sibi  propositus  fuerit,  esse  subjectos,  ita 
Episcopi  noverint  se  magis  consuetudine  qunm  dispositionis  domi- 
nicce  veritate,  Presbyteris  esse  majores,  Hieronymi  Com  :  in  Tit: 
I.  I.  Opp.  Tom.  VI.  p.  168  ed  :   Victorii,  Paris,  1623.  Fol 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  227 

byters  ought  to  be  ordained  he  shows  afterwards  : 
If  any  be  blameless.^  the  husband  of  one  ivife^  &c.  and 
then  adds,  for  a  bishop  must  be  blameless.,  as  the 
steward  of  God.,  «fec.  A  Presbyter.,  therefore,  is  the 
same  as  a  bishop :  and  before  there  were,  by  the  in- 
stigation of  the  devil.,  parties  in  rehgion ;  and  it  was 
said  among  different  people,  /  am  of  Paid.,  and  I 
of  Jipollos.,  and  I  of  Cephas.,  the  churches  were 
governed  by  the  joint  counsel  of  the  Presbyters.  But 
afterwards^  when  every  one  accounted  those  whom 
he  baptized  as  belonging  to  himself  and  not  to 
Christ,  it  was  decreed  throughout  the  ivhole  ivorld 
that  one,  chosen  from  among  the  Presbyters, 
should  be  put  over  the  rest,  and  that  the  whole 
care  of  the  church  should  be  committed  to  him, 
and  the  seeds  of  schisms  taken  away. 

"  Should  any  one  think  that  this  is  my  private 
opinion,  and  not  the  doctrine  of  the  scriptures,  let 
him  read  the  words  of  the  apostle  in  his  epistle  to 
the  Phihppians ;  '  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  ser- 
vants of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ 
Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and 
deacons,'  &:c.  Philippi,  is  a  single  city  of  Mace- 
donia ;  and  certainly  in  one  city  there  could  not 
be  several  bishops  as  they  are  now  styled ;  but  as 
they,  at  that  time,  called  the  very  same  persons 
bishops  whom  they  called  Presbyters,  the  Apostle 
has  spoken  without  distinction  of  bishops  as 
Presbyters. 

"  Should  this  matter  yet  appear  doubtful  to  any 


228  Review. 

one,  unless  it  be  proved  by  an  additional  testi- 
mony ;  it  is  written  in  the  acts  of  the  Apostles, 
that  when  Paul  had  come  to  Miletum,  he  sent  to 
Ephesus  and  called  the  Presbyters  of  that  church, 
and  among  other  things  said  to  them, '  take  heed 
to  yourselves  and  to  all  the  flock  in  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  hath  made  you  bishops.'  Take  particular 
notice,  that  calling  the  Presbyters  of  the  single 
city  of  Ephesus,  he  afterwards  names  the  same 
persons  Bishops."  After  further  quotations  from 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  from  Peter,  he 
proceeds  :  "  Our  intention  in  these  remarks  is  to 
show,  that,  among  the  ancients.  Presbyters  and 
Bishops  ivere  the  very  same.  But  that  by  little 
AND  little,  that  the  plants  of  dissentions  might  be 
plucked  up,  the  whole  concern  was  divolved  upon 
an  individual.  As  the  Presbyters,  therefore,  know 
that  they  are  subjected,  by  the  custom  of  the 
church,  to  him  who  is  set  over  them ;  so  let  the 
Bishops  know,  that  they  are  greater  than  Presby- 
ters more  by  custom,  than  by  any  real  appoint- 
ment OF  CHRIST." 

He  pursues  the  same  argument,  with  great  point, 
in  his  famous  Epistle  to  Evagrius,  asserting  and 
proving  from  the  Scriptures,  that  in  the  beginning 
and  during  the  Apostles'  days,  a  Bishop  and  a 
Presbyter  were  the  same  thing.  He  then  goes  on: 
"As  to  the  fact,  that  afterwards,  one  was  elect- 
ed to  preside  over  the  rest,  this  was  done  as  a 
remedy  against  schism ;  lest  every  one  drawing 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  229 

his  proselytes  to  himself,  should  rend  the  church 
oi  Christ.  For  even  at  Alexandria,  from  the 
Evangelist  Mark  to  the  Bishops  Heraclas  and 
Dionysius,  the  Presbyters  always  chose  one  of 
their  number,  placed  him  in  a  superior  station, 
and  gave  him  the  title  of  Bishop :  in  the  same 
manner  as  if  an  army  should  make  an  emperor ; 
or  the  deacons  should  choose  from  among  them- 
selves, one  whom  they  knew  to  be  particularly 
active,  and  should  call  him  arch-deacon.  For, 
excepting  ordination,  what  is  done  by  a  Bishop, 
which  may  not  be  done  by  a  Presbyter?  Nor  is  it 
to  be  supposed,  that  the  church  should  be  one 
thing  at  Rome,  and  another  in  all  the  world  be- 
sides. Both  France  and  Britain,  and  Africa,  and 
Persia,  and  the  East,  and  India,  and  all  the  bar- 
barous nations  worship  one  Christ,  observe  one 
rule  of  truth.  If  you  demand  authority,  the  globe 
is  greater  than  a  city.  Wherever  a  Bishop  shall 
be  found,  whether  at  Rome,  or  Eugubium,  or 
Constantinople,  or  Rhegium,  or  Alexandria,  or 
Tanis,  he  has  the  same  pretensions,  the  same 
priesthood."* 

*  Quod  autem  postea  unuselectus  est,  qui  caeteris  prseponeretur, 
in  schismatis  remedium  factum  est :  ue  unusquisque  ad  se  trahens 
Christi  Ecclesiam  rumperet.  Nam  et  Alexaudrise  a  Marco  Evan- 
gelista  usque  ad  Heraclam  &  Dionysium  Episcopos,  freshyteri 
semper  unitm  ex  se  electum,  in  excelsiori  gradu  coUocatum,  Episcopum 
nominahant :  quomodo  si  exercitus  imperatorem  facial ;  aut  dia- 
coni  eligant  de  se,  quem  industrium  noverint,  &  archidiaconum 
voceni.     Q^uid  enim  facit,  excepta  ordinatione,  Episcopus,  quod  pres- 


230  Revieiv. 

Here  is  an  account  of  the  origin  and  progress 
of  Episcopacy,  by  a  Father  whom  the  Episcopa- 
Hans  themselves  admit  to  h^ave  been  the  most  able 
and  learned  man  of  his  age  ;  and  how  contradic- 
tory it  is  to  their  own  account,  the  reader  will  be 
at  no  loss  to  perceive,  when  he  shall  have  followed 
us  through  an  analysis  of  its  several  parts. 

1.  Jerome  expressly  denies  the  superiority  of 
Bishops  to  Presbyters,  by  divine  right.  To  prove 
his  assertion  on  this  head,  he  goes  directly  to  the 
scriptures ;  and  argues,  aB  the  advocates  of  parity 
do,  from  the  interchangeable  titles  of  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  ;  from  the  directions  given  to  them  with- 
out the  least  intimation  of  difference  in  their  autho- 
rity; and  from  the  powers  of  Presbyters,  undis- 
puted in  his  day.  It  is  very  true,  that  the  reasoning 
from  names,  is  said,  by  those  whom  it  troubles,  to 
be  "  miserable  sophistry,"  and  "  good  for  nothing :" 
But  as  Jerome  advances  it  with  the  utmost  confi- 
dence, they  might  have  forborne  such  a  compli- 
ment to  the  "  prince  of  divines"  in  the  fourth 
century ;  especially  as  none  of  his  cotemporaries, 
so  far  as  we  recollect,  ever  attempted  to  answer 

byter  non  facial  ?  Nee  altera  Romanae  urbis  Ecclesia,  altera  to- 
lius  orbis  existimanda  esc.  Et  Gallise,  &  Brittaniae,  &  Africa,  & 
Persis,  &  Oriens,  &  ludia,  &  omiies  barbarai  uationes  unum 
Christum  adorant,  unam  observant  regulam  veritatls.  Si  auc- 
toritas  quajritur,  orbis  major  est  urbe.  Ubicumque  fuerit  Episco- 
pus,  sive  Romse,  sive  Eugubii,  sive  Coustantinopoli,  sive  Rhegii, 
sive  Alexandrise,  sive  Taiiis;  ejusderameriti,  ejusdem  &  saccrdotii. 
Hieron.  0pp.  T.  II.  p.  624. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  231 

it.  It  is  a  little  strange  that  laymen,  and  clergy- 
men, deacons,  priests,  and  bishops,  should  all  be 
silenced  by  a  page  of  "  miserable  sophistry !" 

2.  Jerome  states  it,  as  a  historical  fact,  that,  in 
the  original  constitution  of  the  church,  before  the 
devil  had  as  much  influence  as  he  acquired  after- 
wards, the  churches  ivere  governed  by  the  joint  counsels 
of  the  Presbyters. 

3.  Jerome  states  it  as  a  historical  fact,  that  this 
government  of  the  churches,  by  Presbyters  alone, 
continued  until,  for  the  avoiding  of  scandalous 
quarrels  and  schisms,  it  was  thought  expedient  to 
alter  it.  "  Afterwards,'*''  says  he,  "  when  every  one 
accounted  those  whom  he  baptized  as  belonging 
to  himself,  and  not  to  Christ,  it  was  decreed  through- 
out the  tvhole  world,  that  one,  chosen  from  among 
the  Presbyters,  should  be  put  over  the  rest,  and 
that  the  whole  care  of  the  church  should  be  com- 
mitted to  him." 

4.  Jerome  states  it  as  a  historical  fact,  that  this 
change  in  the  government  of  the  church — this 
creation  of  a  superiour  order  of  ministers,  took 
place,  not  at  once,  but  by  degrees — "  Paulatim,^'' 
says  he,  "  by  little  and  little."  The  precise  date 
on  which  this  innovation  upon  primitive  order 
commenced,  he  does  not  mention;  but  he  says 
positively,  that  it  did  not  take  place  till  the  factious 
spirit  of  the  Corinthians  had  spread  itself  in  dif- 
ferent countries,  to  an  alarming  extent.  "  In 
populis,''^  is  his  expression.     Assuredly,  this  was 


232  Review. 

not  the  work  of  a  day.  It  had  not  been  accom- 
phshed  when  the  apostoUc  epistles  were  written, 
because  Jerome  appeals  to  these  for  proof  that  the 
churches  were  then  governed  by  the  joint  counsels 
of  Presbyters ;  and  it  is  incredible  that  such 
ruinous  dissensions,  had  they  existed,  should  not 
have  been  noticed  in  letters  to  others  beside  the 
Corinthians.  The  disease  indeed,  was  of  a  nature 
to  spread  rapidly ;  but  still  it  must  have  time  to 
travel.  With  all  the  zeal  of  Satan  himself,  and  of 
a  parcel  of  wicked  or  foolish  clergymen  to  help 
him,  it  could  not  march  from  people  to  people, 
and  clime  to  clime,  but  in  a  course  of  years.  If 
Episcopacy  was  the  apostolic  cure  for  schism,  the 
contagion  must  have  smitten  the  nations  like  a 
flash  of  hghtning.  This  would  have  been  quite 
as  extraordinary  as  an  instantaneous  change  of 
government ;  and  would  have  afforded  full  as 
much  scope  for  pretty  declamation,  as  the  dream 
of  such  a  change,  which  Cyprian  and  the  Layman 
insist  we  shall  dream  whether  we  will  or  not.  No : 
The  progress  of  the  mischief  was  gradual,  and  so, 
according  to  Jerome,  was  the  progress  of  the  re- 
medy which  the  wisdom  of  the  times   devised.* 

*  Our  opponents,  who  contend  that  nothing  can  be  concluded 
from  the  proaiiscuous  use  of  the  scriptural  titles  of  office,  are  yet 
compelled  to  acknowledge  that  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  after- 
wards separated  and  restricted,  the  former  to  the  superiour,  and  the 
latter  to  the  inferiour  order  of  ministers.  We  would  ask  them  when 
and  why  this  was  done  ?  If  it  was  not  necessai'y  to  distinguish 
these  officers  by  specific  titles  in  the  apostles'  day,  ivhat  necessity 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  233 

We  agree  with  them,  who  think  that  the  experi- 
ment introduced  more  evil  than  it  banished.* 

5.  Jerome  states  as  historical  facts  ^  that  the  ele- 
vation of  one  Presbyter  over  the  others,  was  a  hu- 
man contrivance ; — -was  not  imposed  by  authority, 

was  there  for  such  a  distinction  afterwards  ?  The  church  might 
have  gone  on,  as  she  began,  to  this  very  hour ;  and  what  would 
have  been  the  harm  ?  Nay,  there  was  a  necessity  for  the  distinction ; 
and  Jerome  has  blown  the  secret.  When  one  of  the  Presbyters  was 
set  over  the  heads  of  the  others,  there  was  a  new  officer,  and  he 
wanted  a  name.  So  they  appropriated  the  term  Bishop  to  him ; 
and  thus  avoided  the  odium  of  inventing  a  title  unknown  to  the 
scripture.  The  people,  no  doubt,  were  told  that  there  was  no 
material  alteration  in  the  scriptural  order ;  and  hearing  nothing  but 
a  name  to  which  they  had  always  been  accustomed,  they  were  the 
less  startled.     The  Trojan  horse  over  again! 

*  One  thing  is  ol)vious.  Had  there  never  been,  in  the  persons 
of  the  prelates,  a  sort  of  spiritual  noblesse ;  there  could  never  have 
been,  in  the  person  of  the  Pope,  a  spiritual  monarch.  For  the  very 
same  reason  that  a  Bishop  was  appointed  to  preserve  unity  among 
the  Presbyters,  it  was  necessary,  in  process  of  time,  to  appoint  an 
Archbishop  for  preserving  unity  among  the  bishops;  for  we  never 
yet  heard,  that  increase  of  power  makes  its  possessors  less  aspiring. 
In  the  same  manner  a  patriarch  became  necessary  to  keep  their 
graces  the  Archbishops  in  order  :  and  finally,  our  sovereign  lord 
the  Pope,  to  look  after  the  patriarchs  !  The  analogy  is  perfect ;  the 
reasoning  one  ;  and  the  progression  regular.  What  a  beautiful 
pile!  How  correct  its  proportions,!  how  elegant  its  workmanship! 
how  compact  and  firm  its  structure  !  the  Christian  people  at  the 
bottom  ;  rising  above  them,  the  preaching  deacons:  next  in  order, 
the  Presbyters  ;  above  them,  the  Bishops  ;  these  support  the  Arch- 
bishops, over  whom  tower  the  patriarchs ;  and  one  universal 
Bishop- terminates  the  whole.  Thus  this  glorious  Babylonish  edi- 
fice, having  for  its  base  the  Christian  world,  tapers  off,  by  exquisite 
gradations,  into  "  his  holiness''  at  Rome. 
Vol.  III.  30 


234  Review. 

but  crept  in  by  custom ; — and  that  the  Presbyters  of 
his  day,  knew  this  very  well.  As^  therefore^  says  he, 
the  Presbyters  know  that  they  are  subjected  to  their 
superiour  by  custom  ;  so  let  the  bishops  know  that  they 
are  above  the  Presbyters,  rather  by  the  custom  of  the 
CHURCH,  than  by  the  Lord's  appointment. 

6.  Jerome  states  it  as  a  historical  fact.,  that  the 
first  bishops  were  made  by  the  Presbyters  them- 
selves ;  and  consequently  they  could  neither  have, 
nor  communicate  any  authority  above  that  of 
Presbyters.  "  Afterwards,''''  says  he,  "  to  prevent 
schism,  one  was  elected  to  preside  over  the  rest." 
Elected  and  commissioned  by  whom.^  By  the 
Presbyters :  for  he  immediately  gives  you  a  broad 
fact  which  it  is  impossible  to  explain  away.  "At 
Alexandria,"  he  tells  you,  "from  the  evangelist 
Mark  to  the  Bishops  Heraclas  and  Dionysius," 
i.  e.  till  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  "  the 
Presbyters  always  chose  one  of  their  number,  placed 
him  in  a  superiour  station,  and  gave  him  the  title  of 
Bishop.'''' 

We  have  not  forgotten  the  gloss  put  upon  this 
passage,  by  Detector,  in  the  collection  under  re- 
view. 

"  The  truth  is,"  says  he,  "  that  Jerome  affords  no  authority 
for  this  assertion.  In  his  Epistle  to  Evag.  he  says,  "  Nam 
et  Alexandrise,  a  Marco  Evangehsta  usque  ad  Heraclam  et 
Dionysium  Episcopos,  Presbyteri  semper  unum  ex  se  electum, 
excelsiori  gradu  coUocatum,  Episcopum  no77iinabant,  (\}xorciodiO 
si  exercitus  imperatorem  faciat,  aut  diaconi  eligant  de  se  quem 
indubtriuni  noverint,  et  archidiaconum  vocent."     "  At  Alex- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  235 

andria,  from  Mark  down  to  Heraclas  and  Dionysius  the 
Bishops,  the  Presbyters  always  named  one,  who  being  chosen 
from  among  themselves,  they  called  their  Bishop,  he  being 
placed  in  a  higher  station,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  an  army 
should  make  their  general,  &.c."  Does  St.  Jerome  here  de- 
clare, as  the  fictitious  '*  Clemens  "  asserts,  that  "  the  Presbyters 
ordained  their  Bishop  1"  No  ;  Jerome  merely  asserts,  that  the 
Presbyters  named,  chose  one  to  be  their  Bishop.  Does  it  hence 
follow,  that  they  gave  him  his  commission  ;  that  they  ordained 
him?  Does  it  always  follow,  that  because  an  army  choose  their 
general,  he  does  not  receive  his  commission  from  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  state  1"* 

With  all  deference  to  this  learned  critic,  we 
cannot  help  our  opinion,  that  the  appointment,  or, 
if  you  please,  ordination,  of  the  first  bishops  by 
Presbyters,  not  only  follows  from,  the  words  of  Je- 
rome, but  is  plainly  asserted  by  them. 

Dr.  Hobart,  overlooking  the  Roman  idiom,  has 
thrown  into  his  English,  an  ambiguity  which  does 
not  exist  in  the  Latin  of  Jerome.  According  to 
the  well  known  genius  of  that  language,  especially 
in  writers  who  condense  their  thoughts,  a  verb 
governing  one  or  more  participles,  in  the  con- 
struction before  us,  expresses  the  same  meaning, 
though  with  greater  elegance,  as  would  be  ex- 
pressed by  verbs  instead  of  participles.t     It  is 

*  Detector,  No.  1.  Collec.  p.  84. 

t  Ex.  gr.  lu  Caesar's  description  of  the  bridge  which  he  con- 
structed over  the  Rhine,  the  first  sentence  is  exactly  analogous  to 
the  sentence  of  Jerome :  "  Tigna  bina  sesquipedalia,  paullum  ah 
imo  prtgacuta,  dimensa  ad  altitudinem  flumiuis,  intervallo  pedum 
duorum  inter  se  jungebat."  De  Bello  Gallico.  Lib.  IV.  c.  17.  p. 
187.  ed.  OuDKNORPii.  4to.  1737. 


236  Review. 

very  possible  that  the  Detector  might  not  use  this 
construction ;  but  then  the  Detector  does  not  write 
Latin  hke  old  Jerome.  We  should  display  the 
sentence  at  length,  converting  the  participles  into 
verbs,  were  it  not  for  fear  of  affronting  a  scholar 
who  insists  that  he  has  "  sufficient  learning  to  de- 
fend the  Episcopal  church."* 

"  The  truth  is,"  that  this  "  famous  "  testimony 
of  Jerome,  points  out,  in  the  process  of  bishop- 
making,  but  one  agency,  and  that  is  the  agency  of 
Presbyters.  Dr.  H.  himself  has  unwittingly  con- 
firmed our  interpretation  in  the  very  paragraph 
where  he  questions  it.  His  words  are  these: 
"Jerome  merely  asserts  that  the  Presbyters  named, 
chose  one  to  be  their  bishop."  Not  merely  this ;  for 
the  words  which  Dr.  H.  renders  "  being  placed  in 
a  higher  station,"  are  under  the  very  same  con- 
nection and  government  with  the  words  which  he 
renders,  "being  chosen  from  among  themselves ;" 
and  if,  as  he  has  admitted,  the  latter  declare  a 
bishop  to  have  been  elected  by  the  Presbyters,  then, 
himself  being  judge,  the  former  must  declare  him 
to  have  been  commissioned  by  them.  This  is  an 
awkward  instance  of  felo  de  se ;  yet  a  proof,  how 
properly  the  Reverend  critic  has  assumed  the  ap- 

We  humbly  apprehend  that  Caesar  had  as  much  to  do  in  sharf- 
ening  and  measuring  the  beams,  as  he  had  in  jommg-  them ;  and 
did  not  mean  to  say  that  the  last  operation  was  performed  by  hia 
own  hands,  and  the  former  by  his  ivorJcmen. 

*  Hobart's  Apology,  p.  20. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  237 

pellation  of  Detector  ;  for  he  has  completely  detect- 
ed himself,  and  no  one  else ! 

That  we  rightly  construe  Jerome's  assertion,  is 
clear,  from  the  scope  of  his  argument,  and  from 
his  phraseology  toward  the  close  of  the  paragraph. 

His  position  is,  that  a  Bishop  and  a  Presbyter 
were,  at  first,  the  same  officer.  And  so  notorious 
was  the  fact,  that  he  appeals  to  the  history  of  the 
church  in  Alexandria,  as  an  instance  which  lasted 
a  century  and  a  half,  that  when  Bishops  were 
made,  they  were  made  by  Presbyters.  But  had 
Dr.  H.'s  construction  been  right,  had  Prelates 
alone  ordained  other  prelates,  the  fact,  instead  of 
being /or  Jerome,  would  have  been  directly  against 
himT  and  surely  he  was  not  so  dull  as  to  have 
overlooked  this  circumstance;  although  it  seems 
to  have  escaped  the  notice  of  some  of  his  saga- 
cious commentators. 

Jerome  says,  moreover,  that  Presbyters  origi- 
nally became  Bishops,  much  in  the  same  way  as  if 
an  army  should  "  make  an  Emperor;  or  the  dea- 
cons should  elect  one  of  themselves,  and  call  him 

Arch-deacon^ 

The  Detector  has  given  the  passage  a  twist,  in 
the  hope  of  twisting  Jerome  out,  and  tivisting  the 
hierarchy  in.  "  Does  it  ahoays  follow,"  he  de- 
mands, "  that  because  an  army  choose  their  gene- 
ral, he  does  not  receive  his  commission  from  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  state  ?"  Certainly  not : 
Although  he  would  have  gratified   some  of  his 


238  Review. 

readers  by  producing  examples  of  the  armies  of 
those  ages  choosing  their  general,  and  remitting 
him  to  a  higher  authority  for  his  commission. 
But  how  came  the  Detector  to  alter  Jerome's 
phrase  from  "  making^''  to  "  choosing''''  a  general  ? 
We  always  thought,  that  making  and  commission- 
ing an  officer,  are  the  same  thing.  Further,  how 
came  the  Detector  to  render  Jerome's  "  impera- 
tor'''  by  '-'-  generalT''  Almost  all  the  world,  (for  the 
Detector  seems  to  be  an  exception,)  knows  that 
"•  Imperator^''''  in  Jerome's  day,  signified  not  "  gene- 
ral," but  "  Emperor  ;"  and  was  the  highest  official 
title  of  the  Roman  monarchs.  It  is  further  known, 
that  the  army  had,  on  more  occasions  than  one, 
made  an  emperor ;  and  that  this  was  all  the  commis- 
sion he  had.  "  You  inquire,"  says  Jerome,  "  how 
the  bishops  were  at  first  appointed.  Suppose  the 
deacons  should  get  together  and  elect  one  of  their 
number  to  preside  over  the  rest,  with  the  title  of 
Arch-deacon ;  or  suppose  the  army  should  elevate 
a  person  whom  they  thought  fit,  to  the  Imperial 
throne  -,  just  so,  by  their  own  authority  and  elec- 
tion, did  the  Presbyters  make  the  first  Bishops." — 
And  yet  Dr.  H.  can  find,  in  this  very  testimony,  a 
salvo  for  Episcopal  ordination. — His  powers  of  de- 
tection are  very  uncommon ; 

For  optics  sharp  he  ueeds,  I  ween, 
Who  sees  what  is  not  to  be  seen  ! 

7.  Jerome  states  it,  as  a  historical  fact.,  that  even 
in  his  own  day,  that  is,  toward  the  end   of  the 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  239 

fourth  century,  there  was  no  power,  excepting  or- 
dination, exercised  by  a  Bishop,  which  might  not 
be  exercised  by  a  Presbyter.  "  What  does  a  Bi- 
shop," he  asks,  "  excepting  ordination,  which  a 
Presbyter  may  7iot  do  ?" 

Two  observations  force  themselves  upon  us. 

1st.  Jerome  challenges  the  whole  world,  to  show 
in  what  prerogative  a  Presbyter  was,  at  that  time, 
inferiour  to  a  Bishop,  excepting  the  single  power 
of  ordination.  A  challenge  which  common  sense 
would  have  repressed,  had  public  opinion  con- 
cerning the  rights  of  Presbyters  allowed  it  to  be 
successfully  met. 

2d.  Although  it  appears  from  Jerome  himself, 
that  the  prelates  were  not  then  in  the  habit  of  as- 
sociating the  Presbyters  with  themselves,  in  an 
equal  right  of  government,  yet,  as  he  told  the  for- 
mer, to  their  faces,  that  the  right  was  undeniable, 
and  ought  to  be  respected  by  them,  it  presents  us 
with  a  strong  fact  in  the  jjrogress  of  Episcopal  do- 
mination. Here  was  a  pov/er  in  Presbyters,  which, 
though  undisputed,  lay,  for  the  most  part,  dor- 
mant. The  transition  from  disuse,  to  denial,  and 
from  denial  to  extinction  of  powers  which  the  pos- 
sessors have  not  vigilance,  integrity,  or  spirit  to 
enforce,  is  natural,  short,  and  rapid.  According 
to  Jerome's  declaration,  the  hierarchy  did  not  pre- 
tend to  the  exclusive  right  of  government.  There- 
fore, there  was  but  half  a  hierarchy,  according  to 
the  present  system.     That  the  Bishops  had,  some 


240  Review. 

time  after,  the  powers  of  ordination  and  govern- 
ment both,  is  clear.  How  did  they  acquire  the 
monopoly?  By apostoiic institution?  No.  Jerome 
refutes  that  opinion  from  the  scriptures  and  his- 
tory. By  apostoUcal  tradition  ?  No.  For  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  their  single  pre- 
rogative over  Presbyters  was  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation. Government  was  at  first  exercised  by  the 
Presbyters  in  common.  When  they  had,  by  their 
own  act,  placed  a  superiour  over  their  own 
heads,  they  rewarded  his  distinction,  his  toils, 
and  his  perils,  with  a  proportionate  reverence ; 
they  grew  slack  about  the  maintenance  of  trouble- 
some privilege ;  till  at  length,  their  courtesy,  their 
indolence,  their  love  of  peace,  or  their  hope  of 
promotion,  permitted  their  high  and  venerable 
trust  to  glide  into  the  hands  of  their  prelates.  We 
have  no  doubt  that  the  course  of  the  ordaining 
power  was  similar,  though  swifter. 

Nothing  can  be  more  pointless  and  pithless  than 
the  declamation  of  Cyprian,  the  Layman,  and  their 
Bishop,  on  the  change  which  took  place  in  the 
original  order  of  the  church.  They  assume  a 
false  fact.,  to  wit,  that  the  change  must  have  hap- 
pened, if  it  happened  at  all,  instantaneously :  and 
then  they  expatiate,  with  great  vehemence,  on  the 
impossibility  of  such  an  event.  This  is  mere  noise. 
The  change  was  not  instantaneous,  nor  sudden. 
The  testimony  of  Jerome,  which  declares  that  it 
was  gracliiaU  has  sprung  a  mine  under  the  very 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  241 

foundation  of  their  edifice,  and  blown  it  into  the 
air.     Were  we  inchned  to  take  up  more  of  the 
reader's  time  on  this  topic,  we  might  turn  their 
own  Aveapon,  such  as  it  is,  against  themselves. 
They  do  not  pretend  that  Archbishops,  Patri- 
archs, and  Primates,  are  of  Apostolical  institution. 
They  will  not  so  insult  the  understanding  and  the 
senses  of  men,  as  to  maintain  that  these  officers 
have  no  more  power  than  simple  Bishops.  Where, 
then,  were  all  the  principles  of  adherence  to  Apos- 
lic  order  when  these  creatures  of  human  policy 
made  their  entrance  into  the  church.?     Among 
whom  were  the  daring  innovators  to  be  found } 
Where  was  the  learning  of  the  age  .?     Where  its 
spirit  of  piety,  and  its  zeal  of  martyrdom  }  Where 
were    the    Presbyters .^^     Where   the    Bishops.? 
What !  all,  all  turned  traitors  at  once  ?     All,  all 
conspire  to  abridge  their  own  rights,  and  submit 
their   necks   to   new-made  superiours }     What ! 
none   to  reclaim  or   remonstrate.?     Absurd!    In- 
credible !     Impossible !     These  questions,  and  a 
thousand  Hke  them,  might  be  asked  by  an  advo- 
cate for  the  divine  right  of  Patriarchs,  with  as 
much  propriety  and  force  as  they  are  asked  by 
advocates  of  the  simpler  Episcopacy.     And  so, 
by  vociferating  on  abstract  principles,  the  evidence 
of  men's  eyes  and  ears  is  to  be  overturned,  and 
they  are  to  believe  that  there  are  not  now,  and 
never  have  been,  such  things  as  Archbishops,  Pa- 
triarchs, or  Primates  in  the  Christianized  world : 
Vol.  III.  31 


242  Review. 

seeing  that  by  the  assumpiioyi  of  the  argument,  they 
have  no  divine  original;  and  by  its  terms^  they 
could  not  have  been  introduced  by  mere  human 
contrivance. 

To  return  to  Jerome.  The  Prelatists  being  un- 
able to  evade  his  testimony  concerning  the  change 
which  vi^as  effected  in  the  original  order  of  the 
church,  would  persuade  us  that  he  means  a  change 
brought  about  by  the  authority  of  the  Jtpostles  them- 
selves.*    But  the  subterfuge  is  unavailing.     For, 

(1.)  It  alleges  a  conjectural  tradition  against  the 
authority  of  the  ivritten  scriptures.  For  no  trace 
of  a  change  can  be  seen  there. 

(2.)  It  overthrows  completely  all  the  proof  drawn 
for  the  hierarchy  from  the  Apostohc  records.  For, 
if  this  change  was  introduced  by  the  Apostles  af- 
ter their  canonical  writings  were  closed,  then  it  is 
vain  to  seek  for  it  in  those  writings.  The  conse- 
quence is,  that  the  Hierarchists  must  either  retreat 
from  the  New  Testament,  or  abandon  Jerome. 

(3.)  It  makes  the  intelhgent  father  a  downright 
fool — to  plead  Apostolic  authority  for  the  original 
equality  of  ministers  ;  and  in  the  same  breath  to 
produce  that  same  authority  for  the  inequality 
which  he  was  resisting ! 

(4.)  To  crown  the  whole,  it  tells  us  that  the 
apostles  having  fixed,  under  the  influence  oi^  divine 
inspiration,  an  order  for  the  church ;  found,  upon  a 
few  years'  trial,  that  it  would  not  do,  and  were 

*  Hobart's  Apology,  p.  174,  &c. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  243 

obliged  to  mend  it :  only  they  forgot  to  apprise  the 
churches  of  the  alteration;  and  so  left  the  ex- 
ploded order  in  the  rule  of  faith ;  and  the  new 
order  out  of  it ;  depositing  the  commission  of  the 
prelates  with  that  kind  foster-mother  of  the  hie- 
rarchy, Tradition  /* 

We  may  now  remind  our  reader  of  the  Lay- 
man's declaration,  that  we  "  can  produce  no  record 
of  a  CHANGE  ;  but  are  obliged  to  imagine  owe,  in  op- 
position to  the  UNIFORM  testimony  of  the  primitive  Fa- 
thers /"  And  of  the  declaration  of  Cyprian,  that  we 
talk  '•''  of  a  change  that  must  have  taken  place  at  an 
early  period ;  but  can  produce  no  proof  on  which  to 
(ground  our  bold  assertions " — That  we  "  are  coun- 
tenanced  by  none  of  the  records  of  these  times  that 
have  been  transmitted  to  us  ^'' — That  our  opinion  is 
"  mere  conjecture,  a  creature  of  the  imagination  !  /" 
These  gentlemen  have,  indeed,  made  their  ex- 
cuse ;  they  have  honestly  told  us,  what  their  pages 
verify,  that  they  are  but  "striplings"  in  literature. 
But  that  a  prelate,  from  whom  we  have  a  right  to 
look  for  digested  knowledge,  and  scrupulous  ac- 
curacy, should  deal  out  the  same  crude  and  un- 
quahfied  language,  excites  both  surprise  and 
regret.  He  has  been  pleased  to  say,  that  our  late 
brother,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Linn,  in  "  representing  Jerome 
as  favouring  the  Presbyterian  scheme  of  church  go- 

*  If  any  of  our  readers  wishes  to  have  a  fuller  view  of  the  wri- 
tings of  the  hierarchy  on  Jerome's  spear,  we  advise  him  to  read 
Dr.  Hobart's  Apology,  p.  174 — ]94. 


244  Review. 

vernment,''^  has  ^^ pursued  the  usual  mode  of  artful 
MISREPRESENTATION."  With  ivkom  the  misrepresen- 
tation lies,  we  leave  to  public  opinion.  But  as  we 
wish  to  give  every  one  his  due,  we  cannot  charge 
the  Right  Reverend  Prelate  with  any  art ;  nor 
withhold  an  advice,  that  when  he  is  searching,  on 
this  subject,  for  a  "  spark  of  modesty,"  he  would 
direct  his  inquiries  to  a  "  bosom  "  to  which  he  has 
much  easier  access,  than  to  the  bosom  of  any 
Presbyterian  under  heaven. 

After  this  exhibition  of  Jerome's  testimony,  it 
would  be  superfluous  to  follow  with  particular 
answers,  all  the  petty  exceptions  which  are  found- 
ed upon  vague  allusions  and  incidental  phrases. 
Jerome,  like  every  other  writer  upon  subjects 
which  require  a  constant  reference  to  surrounding 
habits,  conforms  his  speech  to  his  circumstances. 
He  could  not  be  for  ever  on  his  guard ;  and  if  he 
had  been,  no  vigilance  could  have  secured  him 
from  occasional  expressions  which  might  be  inter- 
preted as  favourable  to  a  system  which  he  solemn- 
ly disapproved.  This  will  sufficiently  account  for 
those  disconnected  sentences  which  the  friends  of 
the  hierarchy  have  so  eagerly  seized.  We  could 
show,  taking  them  one  by  one,  that  they  fall  very 
far  short  of  the  mark  to  which  they  are  directed.* 

*  The  quotation  which  stands  most  in  the  way  of  our  argument, 
and  of  Jerome's  testimony,  is  from  his  "  Catalogue  of  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Writers  ;"  where,  s'ays  Dr.  Hobart,  "  he  records  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  '  James,  immediately  after  our  T.ord's  ascension,  having  been 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  245 

When  we  want  to  know  a  man's  matured  thoughts 
on  a  disputed  point,  we  must  go  to  those  parts  of 
his  works  where  he  has  dehberately,  and  of  set 
purpose,  handled  it.  All  his  looser  observations 
must  be  controlled  by  these.  A  contrary  proce- 
dure inverts  every  law  of  criticism ;  and  the  inver- 
sion is  not  the  more  tolerable,  or  the  less  repre- 
hensible, because  advocates  of  the  hierarchy  have 
chosen  to  adopt  it.  But  if  Jerome's  testimony  is 
to  be  slighted,  because  he  was  fervid,  impetuous, 
and  unceremonious,  we  much  fear  that  some  of  the 
most  important  facts  in  ecclesiastical  and  civil 
history  must  be  branded  as  apocryphal.  We  are 
very  sure  that  none  of  Dr.  H.'s  friends  could  ask 

ORDAINED  BISHOP  OF  JERUSALEM,  Undertook  the  charge  of  the 
church  at  Jerusalem.  Timotht  was  ordained  bishop  of  the 
Ephesians  by  Paul,  Titus  of  Crete.  Polycarp  was  by  John 
ORDAINED  bishop  of  Smyrna.'  Here,  then,"  the  reader  perceives 
the  triumph,  "  here,  then,  we  have  bishojJS  ordained  in  the  churches 
by  the  apostles  themselves."     Hobart's  Apology,  p.  194. 

There  is  a  small  circumstance  rather  unfavourable  to  this  vouch- 
er.— It  is  not  Jerome's.  Of  that  part  which  relates  to  Timothy 
and  Titus,  this  is  expressly  asserted  by  the  episcopal  historian, 
Cave;  and  by  Jerome's  popish  editor-  Vide  Cave,  Script,  eccles. 
hist.  Utter,  p.  172,  ed.  Colon.  1720.  Hieron.  Opp.  T./.  p.  265. 268. 
ed.  Victorii.  The  articles  James  and  Polycarp  are  so  precisely  in 
the  same  style  with  the  others,  and  so  diametrically  repugnant  to 
Jerome's  own  doctrine,  that  if,  by  "  bishop,''^  is  meant  such  a 
bishop  as  was  known  in  his  day,  it  is  inconceivable  they  should 
have  proceeded  from  his  pen.  That  they  are  interpolations,  or 
have  been  interpolated,  we  think  there  is  internal  evidence.  At 
least,  when  several  articles  of  the  same  catalogue,  tending  to  the 
same  point,  and  written  in  the  same  strain,  are  confessedly  spurious ; 
it  is  hardly  safe  to  rely  upon  the  remainder  as  authentic  testimony. 


246  Review. 

the  credence  of  the  world  to  a  single  assertion  in 
his  Apology.  And  if  similar  productions  were  the 
fashion  of  the  day,  we  have  no  reason  to  wonder 
at  indignant  feeling  and  vehement  language  in 
men  of  a  less  fiery  spirit  than  father  Jerome. 

The  advocates  of  Episcopacy  assert  that  the 
whole  current  of  fact  and  of  opinion  ^or  fifteen  hun- 
dred years  after  Christ,  is  in  their  favour;  that  we 
"  can  produce  no  record  of  a  change,''^  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church,  "but  are  obliged  to  imagine 
one  in  opposition  to  the  uniform  testimony  of  the 
primitive  fathers." 

We  have  met  them  on  this  ground ;  and  have 
"  produced  "  the  "  testimony  "  of  one  of  the  "  pri- 
mitive fathers,"  directly  against  the  divine  original 
of  the  hierarchy.  This  was  Jerome,  the  most 
learned,  able,  and  distinguished  of  them  all.  He 
tells  us,  in  so  many  words,  not  only  that  the  epis- 
copal pre-eminence  is  without  divine  authority; 
but  that  this  was  a  fact  which  could  not,  with  any 
show  of  reason,  be  disputed ;  as  being  a  fact  well 
ascertained  and  understood.  "  The  Presbyters," 
says  he,  "  knoiv,  that  they  are  subjected  by  the  cus- 
tom of  the  church,  to  him  who  is  set  over  them."* 

To  elude  the  force  of  Jerome's  deposition,  it  is 
alleged,  among  other  things,  that  his  opinion  is  of 
no  weight  unsupported  by  facts  ;  and  that  his  tes- 
timony, in  the  fourth  century,  concerning  facts  in 
the  first  and  second  centuries,  that  is,  two  or  three 

*  See  page 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  247 

hundred  years  before  he  was  born,  is  no  better 
than  an  opinion ;  and  so  he  is  excluded  from  the 
number  of  competent  witnesses.* 

By  this  rule  some  other  witnesses  who  have 
been  summoned  by  our  Episcopal  brethren,  must 
be  cast  without  a  hearing.  Eusebius,  Chrysos- 
tom,  Augustin,  Theodoret,  Epiphanius,  must  all 
be  silenced.  It  is  even  hard  to  see  how  a  single 
man  could  be  left,  in  the  whole  catalogue  of  the 
Fathers,  as  competent  to  certify  any  fact  of  which 
he  was  not  an  eye-witness.  To  say  that  they  de- 
rived their  information  of  times  past  from  credible 
tradition,  or  authentic  records,  is  indeed  to  over- 
rule the  principle  of  the  objection.  But  when  this 
door  is  opened  to  admit  the  others,  you  cannot 
prevent  Jerome  from  walking  in.  We  will  allow 
that  Eusebius  had  access  to  "  all  the  necessary 
records  of  the  churches."  But  had  Jerome  no 
records  to  consult  ?  Was  "  the  most  learned  of  all 
the  Christians,"  as  Erasmus  calls  him,  with  Cave's 
approbation,  in  the  habit  of  asserting  historical 
facts  without  proof.?  If  he  was,  let  our  opponents 
show  it.  If  he  was  not,  as  his  high  reputation  for 
learning  is  a  pledge,  then  his  testimony  is  to  be 
viewed  as  a  summary  of  inductive  evidence  reach- 
ing back  to  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  In  his  esti- 
mation, the  facts  of  the  original  parity  of  minis- 
ters, and  of  the  subsequent  elevation  of  prelates 

*  Cyprian,  No.  VII.  Essays,  p.  167.  Hobart's  Apology,  p. 
171— J78. 


248  Review.  ' ; 

by  the  custom  of  the  church,  were  so  undeniable, 
that  he  did  not  think  it  worth  his  while  to  name  a 
document.  The  conduct  of  this  great  man  was 
different  from  that  of  some  very  confident  writers 
whom  we  could  mention.  He  sifted  his  authori- 
ties, and  then  brought  forward  his  facts  without 
any  specific  reference,  instead  of  malung  stiff  as- 
sertions upon  the  credit  of  authors,  whom  he  never 
read,  nor  even  consulted. 

Jerome,  we  contend,  is  not  only  as  good  a  wit- 
ness in  the  case  before  us,  as  Eusebius  or  any 
other  father,  but  that  he  is  a  far  better  and  more 
unexceptionable  witness  than  either  that  renown- 
ed historian,  or  any  other  prelate  or  friend  of  pre- 
lates.    Whatever  Eusebius,  Chrysostom,  Epipha- 
nius,Theodoret,&c.  testify  in  favour  of  episcopacy, 
must  be  received  with  this  very  important  qualifi- 
cation, that  they  were  themselves  bishops  ;  and  were 
testifying  in  favour  of  their  own  titles,  emolument, 
grandeur,  and  power.     They  nad  a  very  deep  in- 
terest at  stake.     An  interest  sufiicient,  if  not  to 
shake  their  credibility  on  this  point,  yet  greatly  to 
reduce  its  value.     On  the  contrary,  Jerome  had 
nothing  to  gain,  but  much  to  lose.     He  put  his 
interest  and  his  peace  in  jeopardy.     He  had  to 
encounter  the  hostility  of  the  episcopal  order,  and 
of  all  who  aspired  to  its  honours:     He  had  to  re- 
sist the  growing  encroachments  of  corruption, 
and  that  under  the  formidable  protection  of  a  civil 
establishment.     He  had,  therefore,  every  possible 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  249 

inducement  to  be  sure  of  his  facts  before  he  attack- 
ed a  set  of  dignitaries  who  were  not,  in  his  age, 
the  most  forbearing  of  mankind.*  The  conclu- 
sion is,  that  Jerome,  as  we  said,  is  a  more  unex- 
ceptionable witness  than  any  prelate.  To  illus- 
trate— let  us  suppose  a  tribunal  erected  in  England 
to  try  this  question.  Is  Episcopacy  of  divine  institu- 
tion ?  that  no  witnesses  can  be  procured  but  such 
as  were  brought  up  in  the  church  itself;  and  that 
the  judges  were  obliged  to  depend  upon  their  re- 
port of  facts.  The  bishop  of  Durham  is  sworn, 
and  deposes  that  he  has  examined  the  records  of 
the  church,  and  finds  her  to  have  been  episcopal 
from  the  beginning.  A  presbyter  of  the  same 
church,  of  equal  talent,  learning,  and  application, 
is  sworn,  and  deposes  that  he  too  has  examined 
the  records,  and  finds  that,  at  the  beginning,  these 
Christian  ministers  were  of  equal  rank ;  but  that 
by  degrees  inequality  crept  in;  and  that  the  bi- 
shops have  no  pre-eminence  but  what  the  custom 
of  the  church  has  given  them.  In  general  charac- 
ter, for  integrity,  the  witnesses  are  equal.  They 
flatly  contradict  each  other.  Who,  now,  is  the 
most  credible  witness  ?  The  presbyter  runs  the 
hazard  of  almost  every  thing  in  life  by  his  testi- 
mony. The  testimony  of  my  lord  of  Durham  goes" 
to  protect  his  own  dignity  in  the  church ;  his  seat 
in  the  house  of  peers;  and  a  revenue  of  £20,000 
sterling,  per  annum.     A  child  can  decide  who  is 

*  MosHKiM,  Vol.  I.  p.  356. 
Vol.  111.  32 


250  Review. 

most  worthy  of  credit.  Nearly  such  is  the  dif- 
ference between  the  witnesses  for  Episcopacy, 
and  Jerome,  the  witness  for  Presbytery. 

But  we  waive  our  advantage.     We  shall  lay  no 
stress  upon  Jerome's  opinion.     We  shall  cut  off 
from  his  deposition  every  thing  but  what  came 
within  his  personal  observation.     "The  presby- 
ters," says  he,  '■^know  that  they  are  subject  to  their 
bishop,  by  the  custom  of  the  church."     His  testi- 
mony embraces  a  fact  in  existence  and  obvious  at 
the  time  of  deposition ;  viz.  the  knowledge  which 
the  presbyters  of  his  day  had  of  their  being  subject 
to  their  bishops,  solely  by  the   custom  of  the 
church,  and  not  by  Christ's  appointment.     This 
assertion  is  correct,  or  it  is  not.     If  it  is  not,  then 
Jerome  appealed  to  all  the  world  for  the  truth  of 
what  he  knew,  and  every  body  else  knew,  was  an 
absurd  he.     No  brass  on  the  face  of  impudence, 
inferiour  to  that  of  the  Due  de  Cadore,  is  brazen 
enough  for  this.     On  the  other  hand,  if  the  asser- 
tion be  correct,  how  is  this  knowledge  "  of  the 
presbyters  "  to  be  explained  }  Where  did  they  get 
it }  From  one  of  two  sources.     Either  there  must 
have  been  such  a  previous  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject, as  ended  in  establishing  a  general  conviction 
^in  the  minds  of  the  Christian  clergy,  that  prelacy 
is  a  human  invention ;  or  which  is  more  probable, 
the  remnants  and  the  recollection  of  the  primitive 
order  still  subsisted  in  considerable  vigour,  not- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  251 

withstanding  the  rapid  growth  of  the  hierarchy 
since  the  accession  of  Constantine. 

It  is  inconceivable  how  Jerome  should  tell  the 
bishops  to  their  faces,  that  Christ  never  gave  them 
any  superiority  over  the  presbyters ;  that  custom 
was  their  only  title  ;  and  that  the  presbyters  were 
perfectly  aware  of  this ;  unless  he  was  supported 
by  facts  which  they  were  unable  to  contradict. 
Their  silence  under  his  challenges,  is  more  than 
a  presumption  that  they  found  it  wise  to  let  him 
alone.  It  amounts  to  little  short  of  absolute  proof, 
that  there  was  yet  such  a  mass  of  information 
concerning  their  rise,  and  so  much  of  unsubdued 
spirit  in  the  church,  as  rendered  it  dangerous  to 
commit  their  claim  to  the  issue  of  free  inquiry. 
Jerome,  w^ith  the  register  of  antiquity  in  his  hand, 
and  the  train  of  presbyters  at  his  back,  was  too 
potent  an  adversary.  They  could  have  crushed 
the  man ;  but  they  trembled  at  the  truth ;  and  so 
they  sat  quietly  down,  leaving  to  time  and  habit, 
the  confirmation  of  an  authority  which  they  did 
not,  as  yet,  venture  to  derive  from  the  word  of  God. 

In  the  next  age,  when  Jerome  was  dead,  the 
presbyters  cowed ;  and  the  usurpation  of  the  pre- 
lates further  removed  from  the  reach  of  a  reform- 
ing hand ;  Epiphamus  did,  it  is  true,  bluster  at  no 
ordinary  rate  against  the  "heretic"  Aerius  ;  for 
what  reason  we  shall  shortly  see.  But  it  is  very 
remarkable,  that  in  the  fourth  century,  when  the 
pretensions  of  the  prelates  were  pretty  openly  can- 


252  Revieiv. 

vassed,  they  spoke  with  great  caution,  and  with 
manifest  reluctance  on  those  parts  of  Scripture 
which  touch  the  point  of  parity.  Let  any  one, 
for  example,  look  at  the  commentaries  of  Ciiry- 
sosTOM  on  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus. 
Copious  and  fluent  on  other  passages,  he  is  most 
concise  and  embarrassed  on  those  which  relate 
to  ministerial  rank.  Something  he  was  obliged 
to  say :  but  the  plain  words  of  the  apostle  exhibit 
a  picture  so  unlike  the  hierarchy,  that  the  eloquent 
patriarch,  under  the  semblance  of  interpretation, 
throws  in  a  word  or  two  to  blind  the  eyes  of  his 
readers,  and  shuflfles  off  to  something  else ;  but 
never  so  much  as  attempts  to  argue  the  merits  of 
the  question  upon  scriptural  ground.  This  is  the 
reverse  of  Jerome's  practice  in  his  exposition. 
At  this  early  day  we  find  the  advocate  for  parity 
boldly  appealing  to  Scripture ;  examining,  com- 
paring, and  reasoning  upon  its  decisions ;  and  the 
prelatical  expounder  skipping  away  from  it  with 
all  possible  haste  and  dexterity.  We  leave  the 
reader  to  draw  his  own  inference. 

The  sentiment  that  Prelates  are  superiour  to 
Presbyters,  not  by  any  divine  appointment,  but 
merely  by  the  prevalence  of  custom,  extended, 
among  the  Latins  of  the  fourth  century,  much 
further  than  Father  Jerome.  He  himself  tells  us, 
that  the  Presbyters  of  his  day  not  only  thought  so, 
but  knew  so ;  and,  assuming  this  as  an  incontro- 
vertible fact,  he  grounds  upon  it  an  admonition  to 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  253 

the  Bishops  to  recollect  then*  origin.  "  Let  them 
know,"  says  he,  "  that  they  are  above  the  Pres- 
byters more  by  the  custom  of  the  Church,  than  by 
any  institution  of  Christ."  Considering  him  as  an 
honest  witness,  which  is  all  we  ask,  and  our  Epis- 
copal friends  will  not  deny  it,  he  asserts,  without 
qualification,  that  the  Presbyters,  i.  e.  the  mass  of 
Christian  clergy.,  in  his  time,  were  convinced,  upon 
satisfactory  proof,  that  the  authority  exercised 
over  them  by  the  prelates,  limited,  as  it  then  was, 
and  nothing  like  what  they  now  claim,  had  no 
warrant  whatever,  either  in  the  word  of  God,  or 
even  in  apostolical  tradition !  We  repeat  it ;  the 
great  body  of  the  Christian  clergy,  according  to 
Jerome,  were  aware  of  this  ! !  Here,  since  they  call 
for  facts^  here  is  a  fact  more  ponderous  than  all 
the  facts  of  Episcopacy  put  together ;  a  fact  which 
there  is  no  frittering  away,  not  even  by  the  force 
of  that  vigorous  criticism  which  inverts  persons 
and  tenses  ;  transmutes  Hebrew  verbs  into  others 
with  which  they  have  no  affinity ;  and  changes  the 
very  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet;  so  that 
a  t  {zain^)  is  charmed  into  a  |  (nun,)  and,  by  this 
happy  metamorphosis,  the  throat  of  an  ill-con- 
ditioned argument  escapes  from  suffocation  !* 

The  testimony  of  Jerome  is  corroborated  by  a 
contemporary  writer  of  high  renown,  and  an  un- 
exceptionable witness  in  this  case,  as  being  him- 

*  Churchman's  Magazine  for  May  and  June,  1810.  on  Exod. 
xxxiii.  19.  p.  178. 


254  Review. 

self  a  Prelate ;  we  mean  Augustin,  the  celebra- 
ted Bishop  of  Hippo.  In  a  letter  to  Jerome,  he 
has  these  remarkable  words : — 

"  Although,  according  to  the  names  of  honour 
"  which  the  usage  of  the  Church  has  now  acquired^ 
the  office  of  a  Bishop  is  greater  than  that  of  a 
Presbyter,  yet  in  many  things  Augustin  is  inferiour 
to  Jerome."*  The  sense  of  this  acknowledgment 
is  thus  given  by  a  distinguished  Prelate  of  the 
Church  of  England,  as  quoted  by  Ayton : — "  The 
office  of  a  Bishop  is  above  the  office  of  a  Priest, 
not  by  the  authority  of  the  Scripture,  but  after  the 
names  of  honour  which,  through  the  custom  of 
the  Church,  have  now  obtained."t 

The  concession  is  so  clear  and  ample,  that  Car- 
dinal Bellarmine,  with  all  his  integrity,  which  was 
not  a  little,  had  no  other  evasion,  than  to  pretend 
that  these  words  are  not  opposed  to  the  ancient  time 
of  the  Church  ;  but  to  the  time  before  the  Christian 
Church  ;  so  that  tlie  sense  is,  before  the  times  of  the 
Christian  Church  these  names,  Bishop  and  Presbyter, 
were  not  titles  of  honour,  but  of  office  and  age  ;  but  now 
they  are  names  of  honour  and  dignity. % 

Quibbles  were  scarce  when  a  distressed  cardi- 
nal could  muster  up  nothing  more  plausible.     As 

*  Ciuanquam  secundum  honorum  vocabula  qua?  jam  Ecclesia 
usiis obtinuit,  episcopatus  presbyterio  major  sit;  tameu  in  multis 
rebus  Augustiuus  Hierouymo  minor  est.     Ep.  19.  ed  W.vron. 

f  Jewel.  Defence  of  his  apology,  p.  122,  123. 

X  Jameson's  Nazianzeni  querela,  p.  177,  178. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  255 

if  names  of  office  were  not  names  of  dignity  !  As  if 
AuGusTiN,  in  the  very  act  of  paying  a  tribute  of 
profound  respect  to  Jerome,  should  think  of  giving 
him  a  bit  of  grammar  lesson  about  the  words 
"  Bishop"  and  "  Presbyter !"  Verily,  the  Jesuit 
was  in  sore  affliction ;  and  had  he  uttered  all  his 
soul,  would  have  exclaimed,  like  a  certain  Armi- 
nian  preacher,  when  hard  pressed  by  Scriptural 
reasoning ; — "  O  argument,  argument !  The  Lord 
rebuke  thee,  argument !" 

Not  much  happier  than  the  cardinal,  nor  much 
less  anxious  for  such  a  rebuke  to  argument  than 
the  Arminian  preacher,  will  be  those  critics  who 
shall  maintain  that  Augustin's  words  regard  only 
the  names  of  office,  without  any  opinion  on  the 
powers  or  rank  of  the  offices  themselves. 

1.  Such  a  construction  makes  the  Bishop  as- 
sert a  direct  falsehood  ;  the  terms  were  in  use  from 
the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Church;  and, 
therefore,  could  not  have  been  introduced  by  her 
customs. 

2.  If,  by  saying  that  he  was  superiour  to  Jerome 
"according  to  the  names  of  honour  which  the 
Church  had  obtained  by  usage,"  Augustin  meant 
that  he  enjoyed  only  a  titular  pre-eminence  over 
that  Presbyter,  he  either  insulted  Jerome  by  flout- 
ing at  him  with  a  lie  in  the  shape  of  a  compliment, 
or  else  the  Prelates  in  his  day  had  only  a  nominal^ 
and  not  a  real,  power  over  the  Presbyters.     The 


256  R 


eview. 


second  is  contrary  to  fact;  and  the  first  is  too 
absurd  for  even  a  troubled  cardinal. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  alleged  that  Augus- 
tin,  in  flattery  to  Jerome,  seemed  to  claim  only  a 
titular  precedence,  while  he  was  conscious,  at  the 
same  time,  of  enjoying  an  essential  superiority, 
and  that  by  divine  right,  the  disputant  will  turn 
himself  out  of  the  frying  pan  into  the  fire  ;  for  he 
exhibits  the  venerable  father  as  acting  the  knave 
for  the  pleasure  of  proving  himself  to  be  a  fool. 
So  paltry  a  trick  was  not  calculated  to  blow  dust 
into  the  eyes  of  Jerome.  The  distinction  might 
appear  ingenious  to  some  modern  champions  of 
the  hierarchy,  as  it  is  much  in  their  manner ;  but 
could  never  degrade  the  pen  of  the  Bishop  of 
Hippo.  He  is  contrasting  his  official  superiority 
over  Jerome,  with  Jerome's  personal  superiority 
over  himself  The  former  is  the  superiority  of  a 
Bishop  over  a  Presbyter,  which,  he  says,  has 
grown  out  of  the  custom  of  the  Church.  The 
compliment  to  Jerome  consists  in  this — that  while 
the  office  which  sets  him  above  Jerome  was  the 
fruit,  not  of  his  own  deserts,  but  of  the  Church's 
custom,  those  things  which  gave  Jerome  his  supe- 
riority, were  personal  merits.  The  compliment  is 
as  fine,  and  its  form  as  delicate,  as  the  spirit 
which  dictated  it  is  magnanimous. 

But  our  concern  is  with  the  fact  which  it  dis- 
closes. Turn  Augustin's  words  into  a  syllogism, 
and  it  will  stand  thus : 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  257 

Augustiii  is  greater  than  Jerome,  according  to 
tlie  honours  which  have  been  created  by  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Church. 

But  Augustin  is  greaterthan  Jerome,  as  a  Bishop 
is  greater  than  a  Presbyter. 

Therefore^  a  Bishop  is  greater  than  a  Presbyter 
by  the  custom  of  the  Church. 

Here,  now,  is  Augustin  himself,  a  Bishop  of  no 
common  character,  disclaiming,  unequivocally, 
the  institution  of  Episcopacy  by  divine  right :  For 
he  refers  the  distinction  between  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  not  only  to  a  merely  human  original,  but 
to  an  original  the  least  imperative ;  to  one  which, 
however  potent  it  becomes  in  the  lapse  of  time,  is 
at  first  too  humble  to  arrogate  authority,  too  fee- 
ble to  excite  alarm,  and  too  noiseless  almost  to 
attract  notice.  He  calls  it  the  creature  of  custom. 
What  shall  we  say  to  this  testimony  of  Augustin  ? 
He  was  under  no  necessity  of  reveahng  his  private 
opinion.  He  had  no  temptation  to  sap  the  foun- 
dation of  his  own  edifice;  to  diminish  the  dignity 
of  his  own  order.  All  his  interests  and  his  preju- 
dices lay  in  the  opposite  direction.  Yet  he  speaks 
of  Episcopacy  as  the  child  of  custom,  in  the  most 
frank  and  unreserved  manner ;  without  an  apolo- 
gy, without  a  qualification,  without  a  caution.  He 
does  this  in  a  letter  to  Jero3ie,  the  very  man  to 
whom,  upon  modern  Episcopal  principles,  he  should 
not,  would  not,  and  could  not  have  done  it — the 
very  man  who  had  openly,  and  boldly,  and  repeat- 

Vol.  III.  33 


258  Review. 

edly  attacked  the  whole  hierarchy ;  whose  senti- 
ments, reasonings,  and  proofs,  were  no  secret  to 
others,  and  could  be  none  to  him — the  very  man, 
whose  profound  research,  whose  vigorous  talent, 
and  whose  imposing  name,  rendered  him  the  most 
formidable  adversary  of  the  prelature,  and  threat- 
ened to  sway  more  decisively  the  public  opinion, 
than  a  thousand  inferiour  writers — the  very  man, 
therefore,  whom  it  became  his  duty  to  resist.  Yet 
to  this  man  does  Augustin,  the  Bisliop,  write  a 
letter  in  which  he  assigns  to  Episcopacy  the  very 
same  origin  which  Jerome  himself  had  ascribed 
to  it — human  custom  !  ! 

Was  Augustin  ignorant  ?  Was  he  treacherous  ? 
Was  he  cowardly  ?  Was  he  mad  ?  To  write  in  this 
manner  to  Jerome !  and  to  write  it  with  as  much 
composure,  and  sang  froid.,  as  he  would  have  al- 
luded to  any  the  most  notorious  fact  in  existence ! 
No.  He  was  not  ignorant,  nor  treacherous,  nor 
cowardly,  nor  mad.  But  he  spoke,  in  the  honesty 
of  his  heart,  what  he  knew  to  be  true ;  and  what 
no  well  advised  man  would  think  of  denying.  Such 
a  concession,  from  such  a  personage,  at  such  a 
time,  under  such  circumstances,  is  conclusive.  It 
shows,  that  in  his  day,  the  Bishops  of  the  Latin 
Church  did  not  dream  of  asserting  their  superi- 
ority to  Presbyters  by  divine  right.  They  had  it 
from  the  custom  of  the  Church,  and  so  long  as 
that  custom  was  undisturbed,  it  was  enough  for 
them.     Anions  the  Greeks,  the  blundering,  and 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  259 

hair-brained  Epiphanius  set  up  the  claim  of  a.  jus 
divinum;  but  his  contemporaries  were  discreet 
enough  to  let  him  fight  so  foolish  a  battle  single 
handed. 

To  Jerome  and  Augustin  we  may  add  Pelagius, 
once  their  intimate  friend,  and  afterwards,  on  ac- 
count of  his  heresy,  their  sworn  enemy.  "  He  re- 
stricts all  Church  officers  to  priest  and  deacon  :* 
and  asserts,  that  janc^/if,  without  discrimination  or 
restriction,  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles. ''^'\  He 
has  more  to  the  same  purpose ;  reasoning  as  Je- 
rome reasoned,  from  the  Scriptures ;  and  coming, 
as  did  Sedulius,  Primasius,  and  others,  to  the 
same  result ;  viz.  the  identity  of  Bishop  and  Pres- 
byters.J 

Let  not  the  heresy  of  Pelagius  be  objected  to  us. 
Our  Arminians  will  not  surely  cast  opprobrium 
upon  the  name  of  this,  their  ancient  sire.  For  our 
parts,  we,  with  Augustin,  hold  him  in  detestation, 
as  an  enemy  of  the  grace  of  God.  But  his  heresy 
does  not  vitiate  his  testimony  in  the  present  case. 
Fiercely  as  he  was  attacked  by  Jerome  and  Au- 
gustin, his  opinions  on  the  subject  of  Prelacy 
made  no  article  of  accusation  against  him  as  a 
heretic.  Could  it  have  been  done  with  any  show 
of  reason,  we  may  be  certain  it  would  not  have 
been  spared.     But  the  silence  of  his  Prelatical 

*  In  Rom.  xii.  t  la  1  Cor.  i. 

X  Not  having  access  to  these  writers,  we  quote  from  Jameson's 
Nazianzen:  p.  176,  177. 


260  Review. 

antagonists,  on  that  head,  is  a  proof  both  of  the 
justness  of  our  foregoing  comments  on  Augus- 
tin's  letter,  and  also  of  the  general  fact,  that  the 
Bishops  were  conscious  of  their  inability  to  meet 
the  question  of  their  order  upon  the  ground  of 
divine  right. 

There  are  two  considerations  which  clothe  our 
argument  with  additional  force. 

The^r.9/  is,  that  all  able  heretics,  as  Pelagius 
confessedly  was,  in  their  assault  upon  the  Church 
of  God,  direct  their  batteries  against  those  points 
in  which  they  deem  her  to  be  the  least  defensible 
Rightly  judging,  that  it  is  good  policy  to  make  a 
breach,  no  matter  where.  Only  unsettle  the  popu- 
lar mind  as  to  any  one  object  which  it  has  been 
accustomed  to  venerate,  and  the  perversion  of  it 
with  regard  to  many  others,  is  much  facilitated. 
If,  in  this  policy,  Pelagius  and  his  coadjutors  at- 
tacked the  authority  of  the  Bishops,  they  seized 
upon  the  defenceless  spot;  and  the  bishops  were 
beaten  without  a  struggle.  It  is  easy  to  perceive 
what  an  immense  advantage  was  gained  by  the 
heretics  in  their  grand  conflict,  when  their  oppo- 
nents were  put  fairly  in  the  wrong  on  an  incidental 
point,  but  a  point  which,  in  itself,  touched  the  very 
nerves  of  the  public  passions. 

The  5eco«c?  consideration  is,  that  persons  of  such 
different  conditions,  and  such  hostile  feelings,  could 
never  have  united  in  a  common  opinion  upon  a 
deeply  interesting  topic,  had  not  the  facts  upon 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  261 

which  their  union  rested  been  perfectly  indis- 
putable. 

Here  is  Presbyter  and  Prelate;  the  monk  of 
Palestine,  and  the  African  Bishop ;  orthodoxy 
and  heresy;  Augustin  and  Pelagius;  all  com- 
bining in  one  and  the  same  declaration — that 
Episcopacy  has  no  better  original  than  the  custom 
of  the  Church!  Nothing  but  truth — acknowledged 
truth — truth  which  it  was  vain  to  doubt,  could  have 
brought  these  jarring  materials  into  such  a  har- 
mony; these  discordant  spirits  into  such  a  con- 
currence.— Stronger  evidence  it  is  hardly  possible 
to  obtain ;  and  it  would  be  the  very  pertness  of 
incredulity  to  demand.  Yet  there  are  writers  who 
do  not  blush  to  look  us  in  the  face,  and  assert  that 
the  testimony  of  the  primitive  Fathers  is  univer- 
sally in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  as  having  been  es- 
tablished by  Christ  and  his  apostles !  !* 

Does  the  sun  shine  ?  Is  the  grass  green  ?  Are 
stones  hard  ?  Another  shove,  and  we  shall  be  in 
Dean  Berkeley's  ideal  world  ! — If  every  thing  sober 
and  solid  is  to  be  thus  outfaced,  there  is  nothing 
for  it,  but  to  abandon  fact  and  demonstration  as 
chimeras,  and  to  take  up  what  was  once  the  ditty 
of  a  fool,  but  is  now  the  best  philosophy, 

Ilavra  xovij,  xai  ifoyra  FEAns,  xai  ifavra  to  MHAEN. 
*  Essays,  p.  135. 


CONSIDERATIONS    ON    LOTS. 


CONSIDERATIONS    ON    LOTS. 


No.  I. 


The  irequency  of  public  lotteries,  the  enor- 
mous system  of  private  frauds  which  has  grown 
out  of  them,  the  extensive  ramifications  of  their 
■principle  through  the  community,  and  the  facility 
with  which  many  well  disposed  persons  are  se- 
duced into  the  support  of  that  principle,  seem  to 
require  an  investigation  of  the  true  nature  and 
use  of  the  lot.  We  shall  accordingly  devote 
some  papers  to  that  subject. 

A  lot  is  an  action,  intended  to  decide  a  point 
without  the  aid  of  human  skill  or  power.  This 
definition  includes  every  form  of  the  lot,  or  every 
decision  which  in  common  language,  is  said  to 
be  left  to  chance.  Thus,  whether  the  lot  or  the 
chance  consist  in  drawing  a  ticket  at  random 
out  of  the  lottery- wheel,  after  it  has  been  turned 

Vol.  II.  34 


266  Consideratioiis  oti  Lots. 

round  to  prevent  collusion,  or  in  the  position  of 
a  die  which  is  thrown  after  rattling  it  in  the  box, 
or  in  the  particular  distribution  of  cards  after  a 
promiscuous  shuffle,  or  in  the  tossing  up  of  a 
piece  of  money,  is  a  matter  of  no  moment.  The 
principle  of  the  action  is  still  the  same ;  the  de- 
cision to  be  effected  is  put  avowedly  out  of  the 
control  of  human  skill  and  power. 

My  design  is  to  show  that  every  such  action, 
that  is,  every  lot,  is  a  direct  appeal  to  the  living 
God,  as  the  governor  of  the  world,  and  that  his 
holy  providence  is  concerned  in  the  event. 

For,  if  it  be  not  an  appeal  to  God,  what  is  it  ? 
Not  a  reference  to  the  tribunal  of  men ;  for  it  is 
so  constructed  as  purpo.sely  to  exclude  their  ju- 
risdiction.    Not  a  reference  to  any  other  crea- 
tures superior  to  man ;  for  it  would  suppose  them 
to  be    omnipresent,   which   is   an    attribute    of 
Deity.     Not  a  reference  to  nothing  ;  for  that  is  a 
contradiction.     Not  a  reference  to  chance ;  for 
that  is  atheism.     There  is,  indeed,  much  talk  of 
chance  :  and,  in  its  popular  use,  signifying  some- 
thing which  happens  in  a  manner  unforeseen  by 
us,  the  term  is  harmless  enough.    But  when  used 
philosophically,  that  is,  when  applied  to  the  doc- 
trine of  cause  and  effect,  it  is  either  absurd  or 
blasphemous.     For    what    is  this    chance?     It 
either  has  a  real  existence  or  not.     If  it  has  no 
existence,  then  when  you  say  that  a  lot  is  deter- 
mined by  chance,  you  say  that  it  is  determined 


Consklerations  on  Lots.  267 

by  nothing  :  that  is,  you  say  here  is  a  sensible 
eflect  produced  by  no  cause  at  all.  This  is  pure 
nonsense.  If  your  chance  is  a  real  being,  what 
sort  of  being  7  Either  it  has  life,  intelligence, 
and  power,  or  not.  If  not,  then  you  say  that 
millions  of  effects  (for  there  are  millions  of -lots 
in  the  world)  are  produced  by  a  cause  which 
has  neither  powder,  nor  intelligence,  nor  life :  that 
is,  you  say,  that  millions  of  actions  are  performed 
by  an  agency  which  is  essentially  incapable  of 
any  action  whatever.  And  this  is  as  pure  ab- 
surdity as  the  former.  If  you  say  that  your 
chance  is  a  living,  intelligent,  and  active  being, 
I  ask  who  it  is  ?  and  how  you  got  your  know- 
ledge of  it  1  You  certainly  imagine  it  to  pos- 
sess omnipresence  and  omnipotence ;  for  you 
suppose  it  capable  of  producing,  at  the  same 
moment,  millions  of  effects  in  millions  of  places  ; 
and  thus  you  have  found  out  a  being  that  dis- 
plays perfections  of  God,  and  yet  is  not  God. 
This  conclusion  is  as  blasphemous  as  the  others 
are  insane.  There  is  no  retreat.  Survey  the 
subject  in  any  possible  light,  and  you  are  driven 
to  this  issue,  that  the  lot  is,  by  the  very  nature 
of  the  case,  a  direct  appeal  to  the  living  God,  as 
the  Governor  of  the  world. 

As  the  appeal  is  to  him,  so  his  providence  re- 
gulates the  event. 

To  many  it  seems  irrational  that  the  High  and 
Lofty  One  who  inhabits  eternity  should  descend 


268  Considerations  on  Lots. 

to  our  little  affairs,  and  take  cognizance  of  things 
which  minister  to  onr  amusement  or  agitate  our 
passions.  They  can  conceive  of  a  providence 
which  keeps  worlds  in  their  sphere  and  legislates 
for  the  universe.  This  general  government  fills 
them  with  magnificent  ideas,  worthy  as  they 
think  of  the  Supreme ;  but  to  such  petty  con- 
cerns as  the  common  incidents  of  human  life, 
they  judge  it  beneath  his  majesty  and  felicity  to 
attend ! 

This  sort  of  argumentation  is  not  the  only  in- 
stance in  which  atheism  puts  on  the  cloak  of 
reverence  for  God.  I  do  not  assert  that  all  who 
adopt  such  notions  are  atheists,  but  that  the  doc- 
trine itself  is  atheistical  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
It  makes  a  distinction  between  a  general  and  a 
particular  providence,  admitting  the  former  and 
exploding  the  latter.  We  are  to  believe,  then, 
that  Jehovah  rules  the  ivhole  of  his  universe  but 
not  its  parts ;  or  that  he  has  fixed  certain  laws 
by  which  its  operations  go  on  independently  of 
his  interposition.  A  fine  world  of  creatures 
truly,  that  can  "  live,  and  move,  and  have  their 
being,"  in  a  state  of  complete  separation  from 
the  influence  of  their  Creator !  According  to 
this  scheme,  he  has  had  no  sort  of  interest  in 
them  from  the  moment  he  gave  them  out  of  his 
plastic  hand,  and  never  shall  have  any  during 
the  whole  period  of  their  being.  And  as  for 
those  who  dream  of  his  presiding  over  suns  and 


Considerations  on  Lots.  269 

stars,  Avitliout  noticing-  the  puny  inhabitants  of 
our  globe,  they  might  with  equal  reason  dream 
of  his  creating  suns  and  stars  without  his  having 
created  men,  or  beasts,  or  insects,  at  all.  That 
which  it  was  not  unworthy  of  him  to  create,  it 
is  not  unworthy  of  him  to  preserve  and  govern. 
It  would  surely  be  inverting  all  propriety  to 
maintain,  that  in  proportion  as  creatures  are 
feeble,  they  can  dispense  with  his  fostering  care ; 
and  that  rational  creatures,  formed  for  immor- 
tality, are  exempted  from  the  empire  of  his  law. 
For  however  artfully  the  sophist  may  play  off* 
his  quibbles,  a  sound  mind  will  perceive  that, 
without  a  particular  providence,  man  cannot  be 
accountable. 

This  doctrine  of  a  providence  extending  even 
to  the  most  trivial  occurrences  pervades  the  sys- 
tem of  revelation,  and  is  stated  in  the  scriptures 
with  the  utmost  precision  and  perspicuity.  / 
form  the  light,  and  create  darkness;  I  make 
peace,  and  create  evil.  .  I,  Jehovah,  do  all  these 
things.  (Is.  xlv.  7.)  Thon  sendest  forth  thy 
Spirit,  they  (the  young  animals)  are  created; 
and  tJiou  renewest  the  face  of  the  earth.  (Ps. 
civ.  30.)  Arc  not  two  sparrows  sold  for  a  far- 
thing'? and  one  of  tJicni  shall  not  fall  on  the 
ground  ivithotit  your  Father :  hut  the  very  hairs 
of  your  head  are  all  numbered.  (Mat.  x.  29,  30.) 
What  can  be  of  less  importance  than  the  perish- 
ing of  a  sparrow  ?     What  more  worthless  thaji 


270  Considerations  on  Lots. 

a  hair  of  one's  head  ?  And  yet,  the  Truth  itself 
being  witness,  both  are  objects  of  the  divine  re- 
gard. "  It  accords  with  the  most  liberal  .spirit 
of  pliilosophy  to  believe,  that  not  a  stone  can 
fall  or  plant  rise  without  the  immediate  agency 
of  divine  power."*  This  is  good  sense,  and 
Christianity  owns  it  all.  If,  then,  the  provi- 
dence of  God  directs  and  disposes  all  other,  the 
most  minute  events,  by  what  reasoning  shall  it 
be  proved  to  have  no  concern  with  lots '?  espe- 
cially as  he  has  declared  the  lot  to  be  under  his 
immediate  inspection  ?  The  lot  is  cast  into  the 
lap,  but  the  whole  disj^osifig  thereof  is  of  the 
Lord.  (Prov.  xvi.  33.)  This  will  be  decisive 
with  him  who  in  simplicity  and  reverence  in- 
quires after  the  truth.  But  as  there  are  captious 
spirits  which  seek  to  hide  themselves  in  the 
mist  of  objections,  and  as  arguments  addressed 
to  the  love  of  dissipation  and  of  gain  are  apt  to 
make  "  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason,"  we 
shall  pursue  a  little  farther  the  denial  of  such  a 
providence  as  embraces  the  drawing  of  a  ticket 
or  the  cast  of  a  die. 

To  deny,  then,  that  the  divine  providence  is 
concerned  in  decisions  obtained  by  lot,  is  to  deny 
that  it  has  any  concern  with  individuals  or  their 
actions.  For  it  cannot  be  shown  that  the  go- 
vernment of  God  affects  any  individual  or  any 

*  Malthus.     Essay  on  tlie  Principle  of  Population.     Vol.  II. 
p.  67. 


Considerations  on  Lots.  271 

action,  but  upon  the  broad  principle  of  its 
extending  to  every  individual  and  every  action. 
If  this  position  is  incorrect,  a  line  of  distinction 
must  be  drawn  between  persons  and  actions  that 
vre  and  are  not  under  his  immediate  control.  If 
there  are  individuals  to  whom  his  providence, 
wdiich  is  another  name  for  the  administration  of 
his  government,  does  not  reach,  then  all  such 
individuals  are  exempted  from  the  obligation  of 
his  law,  and  are  neither  accountable  nor  depend- 
ent. For  it  is  absurd  to  talk  of  dependence, 
and  law,  and  responsibility,  while  you  exclude 
the  only  agency  which,  by  ascertaining  facts, 
motives,  and  character,  can  lay  the  basis  of  a 
perfect  judgment. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  divine  providence 
embraces  all  j^^^^'^ons,  but  not  all  actions,  it  fol- 
low^s  that  the  actions  thus  omitted  are  not  sub- 
ject to  the  divine  law  ;  and,  of  course,  that  men 
are  at  one  period  of  their  lives  amenable  to  God 
for  their  conduct,  and  at  another  period  are  not 
amenable.  And  between  these  two  states  of 
being  luith  and  loithout  law  to  God  they  are  per- 
petually vibrating.  But  how  are  they  to  know 
when  these  alterations  take  place'?  God  has 
not  revealed  it,  and  they  cannot  discover  it  for 
themselves.  But  no  judicious  man  can  be  re- 
conciled to  so  miserable  a  subterfuge  from  a 
pinching  argument.  It  wnll  not  bear  examina- 
tion for  a  single  moment.     The  alternative  is, 


272  Considerations  on  Lots. 

tliat  the  providence  of  God  directs  every  thing 
or  nothing.  If  the  former,  then  even  the  cast- 
ing of  a  die ;  if  the  latter,  we  are  plunged  into 
atheism  at  once ;  for  a  God  who  does  not  go- 
vern the  world  is  no  God  at  all. 

Perhaps  it  will  he  urged,  that  the  Creator  has 
"  fixed  certain  laws  in  the  physical  world ;  that 
the  doctrine  of  chances,  founded  upon  these 
laws,  is  a  subject  of  calculation ;  and  that  their 
operation  is  the  only  thing  to  be  seen  in  the  com- 
bination of  chances." 

I  assent  to  the  proposition,  but  contend  that 
the  objection  grounded  upon  it  is  either  futile  or 
impious. 

Futile — for  it  amounts  to  no  more  than  this, 
that  the  Most  High  acts  by  second  causes ;  un- 
less, indeed,  they  can  act  without  him.  The  ob- 
jection, to  have  any  force,  must  mean  that  they 
can  so  act ;  and  then. 

It  is  impious — for  it  strikes  at  the  lohole  go- 
vernment of  God,  in  so  far  as  it  is  carried  on 
through  the  medium  of  physical  laws.  To  re- 
peat the  substance  of  a  remark  already  made, 
if  his  providence  has  no  concern  in  one,  two,  or 
twenty  actions  or  events,  occurring  according  to 
physical  laws,  it  is  equally  unconcerned  in  all 
such  events  and  actions  ;  and  thus  we  arrive  at 
the  old  inference,  that  God  has  nothing  to  do 
with  us  nor  our  affairs.  This  mode  of  reasoning, 
pushed  a  little  farther,  will  expel  every  thing 


Considerations  on  Lots.  273 

but  physical   laws  out  of  the  universe.     If  I 
may  shut  my  Maker  out  of  all  events  happening 
according  to  these  lav^^s,  why  not  myself  and 
every  other  rational  agent  1     And  if  I  set  my 
neighbor's  house  on  fire,  or  cut  his  throat,  w^hy 
not  refer  these  things  to  the  class  of  facts  hap- 
pening according  to  the  laws  of  muscular  mo- 
tion 7     You  shall  not  tell  me  that  my  rational 
and  moral  nature  acted  through  the  instrumen- 
tality of  the  firebrand  or  the  knife ;  because  this 
is  to  assert  what  you  have  just  denied,  viz.  that 
intelligent  and  moral   power  acts  by  physical 
means.     On  my  principles  I  admit  your  solu- 
tion, but  then  it  spoils  your  philosophy ;  for  I 
shall  as  soon  believe  that  an  axe  can  hew  wood 
without  the  agency  of  man,  as  that  physical 
events  can  be  produced,  or  physical  law  exist, 
without  the  agency  of   God.     And  I    shall  as 
soon  deny  the  hewing  of  wood  with  an  axe  in 
my  hand  to  be  my  own  act,  as  deny  the  produc- 
tion of  an  event  by  physical  laws  to  be  an  act 
of  the  divine  providence.     In  truth,  all  moral 
order  is  maintained,  and  all  moral  events  come 
to  pass,  by  the  intervention  of  physical  law. 
And  thus  the  conclusion  forces  itself  upon  us, 
that  the  disposing  of  the  lot  is  as  much  the  act 
of  God,  as  if  he  were  to  perform  it  by  some  visi- 
ble interposition.     And  therefore  a  wanton  or 
needless  appeal  to  him  by  the  lot  is^a  profana- 
tion  of  his  name. 

Vol.  III.  35 


274  Considerations  on  Lots. 

It  will  not  avail  to  plead,  "  the  unseemliness 
of  supposing  that  men  of  profane  minds  can, 
whenever  tiiey  please,  coinpel  the  Almighty  to 
become  umpire  between  them."  The  same  ob- 
jection applies  to  the  oath.  Shall  men  of  pro- 
fane minds  compel  the  Almighty  at  their  plea- 
sure to  ascend  his  throne  of  judgment,  and  de- 
cide on  perj  uries  and  blavsphemies  1  Such  lan- 
guage is  irreverent  and  ought  not  to  be  uttered. 
The  plea,  however,  may  be  retorted.  Shall  the 
laws  of  God's  world  be  suspended,  or  his  ordi- 
nary agency  interrupted,  because  men  choose  to 
be  wicked?  Shall  they  oblige  him  to  work 
miracles  in  order  to  keep  himself  out  of  the  way 
so  often  as  they  incline  to  sport  with  his  provi- 
dence? Nay,  his  appointments  stand.  His 
laws  go  on.  His  agency  in  them  ceases  not  for 
a  moment.  And  if  men  convert  them  to  an  un- 
holy use,  he  will  not  alter  his  course  to  prevent 
either  their  crime  or  their  punishment. 

To  exhibit  this  matter  in  another  light.  If  the 
divine  providence  is  not  to  be  considered  in  the 
lot,  why  is  it  to  be  considered  in  any  other  action? 
And  if  in  no  other,  upon  what  principle  can 
there  be  any  religious  worship  ?  W  hy  should 
men  pray  ?  Is  the  Most  High  to  leave  them  in 
their  pastimes  and  sins,  and  come  at  their  beck 
in  the  hour  of  trouble  7  How  can  there  be  any 
future  retribution  ?  For  this  j)roceeds  upon  the 
supposition   of   God's   perpetual   presence  and 


Considerations  on  Lots.  275 

agency ;  as  there  is  none  in  earth  or  heaven,  but 
himself,  who  can  render  to  every  one  according 
to  his  works. 

The  sum  is,  that  against  the  interposition  of 
God's  providence  in  the  decision  by  lot,  there 
can  be  advanced  no  arguments  which  do  not 
lead  directly  to  atheism.  Consequently,  all  such 
arguments  are  false ;  and  a  decision  by  the  lot  is 
a  decision  of  God's  own  providence.  And  as 
the  lot,  in  every  form  and  under  all  circum- 
stances, is  an  appeal  to  him,  it  ought  to  be  em- 
ployed in  a  manner  suitable  to  its  nature.  What 
the  proper  use  of  the  lot  is,  and  how  it  is  abused 
at  the  expense  of  much  sin,  shall  be  pointed  out 
hereafter. 


No.  II. 


It  has  already  been  proved  from  the  very  na- 
ture of  the  thing,  that  a  lot  is,  in  every  form  and 
upon  every  occasion,  an  appeal  to  the  Most  High 
God  as  the  Governor  of  the  world,  and  that  the 
decision  obtained  by  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  his 
decision.  My  doctrine,  however,  comes  clothed 
with  an  authority  much  higher  than  that  of  ar- 
gument, the  authority  of  his  own  oracles.     The 


276  Considerations  on  Lots. 

lot  is  cast  into  the  laj),  but  the  whole  disposing 
thereof  is  of  the  Lord.  (Prov.  xvi.  33.)  This 
whole  disposing,  a  good  translation  from  a  term 
of  great  latitude,  cannot  comprehend  less  than 
the  following  declarations : 

1.  That  as  soon  as  the  lot  leaves  the  hands  of 
men,  it  passes  into  the  hand  of  God. 

2.  That  the  direction  of  it  to  its  issue  is  his 
own  act ;  and, 

3.  That  he  acknowledges  the  result  as  a  judg- 
ment given  by  himself 

Can  there  remain  any  doubt  on  this  point  with 
a  serious  mind?  Is  there  any  suspicion  that 
the  reasoning  upon  it  may  have  been  overstrained, 
or  the  sense  of  the  passage  just  quoted  mistaken  1 
Let  us  compare  them  with  scriptural  facts. 

The  patriarch  Jacob,  on  his  dying  bed,  fore- 
told by  the  spirit  of  prophecy  the  future  condi- 
tion of  his  sons,  and  even  marked  out  the  dis- 
tricts which  some  of  them  should  inhabit.     Mo- 
ses, in  his  parting  blessing,  was  equally  particu- 
lar with  respect  to  certain  of  the  tribes.     And 
yet  the  land  of  their  inheritance,  by  a  statute  of 
Moses  himself,  was  directed  to  be  divided  by  lot  : 
and  was  actually  so  divided  under  the  inspection 
of  Joshua,  Eleazer,  and  the  principal  men  of  the 
nation.     Thus,  also,  in  the  election  of  the  first 
king  of  Israel,  Saul,  the  son  of  Kish,  a  Benja- 
mite,  was  pointed  out  to  Samuel  the  prophet  by 
special  revelation,  as  the  man  whom  God  had 


Considerations  on  Lots.  277 

designated  for  that  high  station.  For  The  Lord 
had  told  Samuel  in  his  ear,  saying,  To-morroio, 
about  this  time,  Iicill  send  thee  a  man  out  of  the 
land  of  Benjamin,  and  thou  shalt  anoint  him  to 
be  captain  over  my  people  Israel.  And  when 
Samuel,  the  next  day,  saw  Saul,  the  Lord  said 
unto  him.  Behold  the  man  tchom  I  S2mke  to  thee 
of!  This  same  shall  reign  over  my  people.  In 
pursuance  of  this  intimation  Samuel  took  Saul 
apart,  and  poured  a  phial  of  oil  upon  his  head, 
and  kissed  him,  and  said,  Is  it  not  because  the 
Lord  hath  anointed  tJiee  to  be  cap>tain  over  his  in- 
heritance ? 

This  affair,  the  reader  will  notice,  was  between 
Samuel  and  the  new  monarch  alone,  as  the 
former  had,  of  set  purpose,  excluded  all  wit- 
nesses. It  appears  also  to  have  been  kept  a  pro- 
found secret.  For  when  God  had  given  to  Saul 
"  another  heart,"  and  the  prophetic  spirit  had 
fallen  upon  him,  the*  people  were  astonished, 
and  said  one  to  another,  What  is  this  that  is  come 
unto  the  son  of  Kish  7  But  had  they  known  the 
nature  of  the  interview  between  him  and  Sa- 
muel, they  would  have  been  prepared  for  this 
singular,  and  to  them  inexplicable,  occurrence. 

Shortly  after  these  transactions,  the  good  old 
prophet  assembled  the  tribes  of  Israel,  before 
God,  in  Mizpeh  ;  and  when  he  had,  in  the  most 
dignified  manner,  but  without  success,  remon- 
strated against  their  folly  and  their  sin  in  reject- 


278  Considerations  on  Lots. 

ing  their  God,  and  desiring  a  king,  he  ordered 
them  to  present  themselves  by  their  tribes,  and 
to  choose  their  king  by  lot.  Tlie  tribes  came 
near ;  the  lot  was  cast ;  and  fell  first  on  the 
tribe,  next  on  the  family,  and  finally  on  the  per- 
son, of  Saul. 

Other  instances  are  at  hand,  but  these  two  are 
sufficient.  The  certainty  of  the  event  is  previ- 
ously ascertained  in  both,  by  the  testimony  of 
God ;  and  yet  the  lot  is  cast  in  the  same  manner 
as  if  nothing  had  been  revealed !  Who  does 
not  see,  that  the  credit  of  his  prophets  and  the 
truth  of  their  inspiration,  were  put,  by  such  a 
proceeding,  to  the  most  hazardous  of  all  possible 
experiments.  Who  does  not  see,  in  the  exact  co- 
incidence of  the  sortilege  with  the  prediction,  a 
divine  finger  directing  the  lot  to  that  same  issue 
which  a  divine  prescience  had  foretold  ?  The 
alternative  is  plain.  You  must  either  deny  the 
scriptural  narrative  to  be  true,  or  you  must  con- 
cede that  the  "  whole  disposing  of  these  lots  was 
from  the  Lord."  Samuel  exclaimed,  when  Saul 
was  produced  to  the  people.  See  ye  him^  lohom 
the  Lord  hath  chosen  ?  They  knew  of  no  choice 
but  that  of  the  lot.  They  never  so  much  as 
hesitated  whether  it  was  the  divine  act  or  not. 
Nor  was  their  opinion  at  all  uncommon.  The 
very  same  opinion  runs  through  the  whole  his- 
tory of  lots  as  recorded  in  the  Bible.  And,  by 
the  way,  it  is  not  impertinent  to  ask.  How  such 


Considerations  on  Lots.  279 

a  notion  took  possession  of  the  minds  of  men  7 
To  say  that  superstition  early  prevailed,  and 
that  it  easily  corrupts  the  moral  and  intellectual 
powers,  may  satisfy  an  infidel,  but  not  an  inqui- 
rer, far  less  a  thinker.  Superstition  obscures, 
abuses,  and  degrades,  whatever  it  touches,  but 
it  creates  nothing.  It  misapplies,  and  throws 
into  a  thousand  absurd  contortions,  the  religious 
character  of  man ;  but  without  the  pre-existence 
of  that  character  it  can  have  no  materials  to  act 
upon.  The  lot  could  never  have  been  an  engine 
of  superstition ;  I  will  add,  could  never  have 
found  its  way  into  sober  discussion,  and  thence 
into  foolish  pastime,  but  in  consequence  of  a 
deep  laid  conviction  that  it  is  a  mode  of  mani- 
festing the  divine  will.  Ring  the  changes  upon 
the  word  superstition  as  often  and  as  loud  as  you 
please ;  you  do  but  beg  the  question  ;  you  give 
no  explanation ;  you  are  not  a  hair's  breadth 
nearer  the  solution  of  the  problem.  Besides,  in 
the  cases  which  we  have  examined,  there  was 
no  room  for  superstition.  It  is  not  the  attribute 
of  that  blind  and  senseless  tyranny  to  look  into 
the  secrets  of  a  future  age ;  and  the  coincidences 
between  the  prophecy  and  the  lot,  both  in  the 
division  of  Canaan  and  the  elevation  of  Saul, 
were  too  many,  too  minute,  and  too  public,  to 
have  been  either  fortuitous  or  fraudulent.  What 
remains,  but  that  the  conviction  of  which  we 
are  speaking  could    have  had  no  other   origin 


280  Coitsideralions  on  Lots. 

than  a  faith  in  the  particular  providence  of  God, 
commingling  with  affairs  apparently  the  most 
casual,  overruling  them  to  a  proper  termination, 
and  instamping  the  lesson  upon  the  use  of  the 
lot?  This  beautifully  elucidates  certain  scrip- 
tural phraseologies  which  otherwise  are  hardly 
intelligible.  Thou  siistainest  my  lot.  Thou 
shall  stand  in  thy  lot.  The  rod  of  the  luicked 
shall  not  rest  upon  the  lot  of  the  righteous.  In- 
heritance (lot)  amo7ig  them  that  are  sanctified. 
Giving  thanks  unto  the  leather  who  hath  made  us 
meet  to  be  jx^'^^takers  of  the  inheritance  (lot)  of 
the  saints  in  light.     JVeither  as  being  lords  over 

God^S  HERITAGE  (lOTs). 

How  could  men  ever  have  submitted  their 
wishes,  their  reason,  their  fortunes,  their  lives,  to 
the  lot,  without  a  strong  assurance  that  the  wise 
and  righteous  God  speaks  by  it  ?  How  could 
the  term  '^  lot"  have  been  adopted  to  signify  their 
condition  and  circumstances,  as  ordered  by  his 
providence,  without  a  settled  belief  that  the  lot 
is  regulated  by  his  providence  ?  Or,  if  this  be- 
lief is  erroneous,  how  could  it  have  been  ad- 
mitted into  the  devotional  language  of  his  church, 
and  sanctioned,  from  time  immemorial,  by  his 
Spirit  of  truth  7 

These  considerations  preclude,  in  a  great 
measure,  an  objection  which  readily  offers  itself, 
and  is  not  without  force.  "  That  the  lots  men- 
tioned in  scripture,  were  extraordinary,  and  be- 


Considerations  on  Lots.  281 

came  appeals  to  God,  and  expressed  his  will,  in 
virtue  of  his  own  commandment,  which  is  equally 
necessary  to  every  similar  application  of  them ; 
and  therefore,  that  the  instances  quoted  do  nei- 
ther prove  his  particular  agency  in  ordinary  lots, 
nor  furnish  any  general  principle  of  reasoning 
as  to  their  nature  and  use." 

This  objection,  though  deemed  by  some  to  be 
unanswerable,  is  not  valid. 

1.  It  is  incorrect  in  its /«c^s.  For  although 
there  are  instances  of  God's  directing  an  appeal 
to  him  by  lot  for  special  purposes  ;  yet  there  are 
others  in  which  the  appeal  was  not  founded  up- 
on any  such  direction ;  and  so  must  have  rested 
upon  the  known  design  of  the  lot. 

2.  It  is  incorrect  in  its  assumption,  viz.  that  it 
was  the  special  injunction  of  God  which  con- 
verted the  lot  into  an  appeal  to  him.  Whereas 
the  injunction  2y7-esupposcs  such  an  appeal  as 
being  essential  to  the  lot ;  and  in  appointing  it 
to  be  employed  on  special  occasions,  only  ap- 
pointed the  use  of  a  known  method  of  bringing 
a  matter  before  the  dirme  tribunal,  in  preference 
to  other  methods  which  might  have  been  se- 
lected. 

3.  The  objection  throws  its  authors  and  advo- 
cates into  that  gulf  of  atheism,  to  which,  it  was 
demonstrated  in  our  first  paper,  the  denial  of 
God's  providence  in  the  lot  most  certainly  tends. 

Vol.  III.  36 


282  Considei'ations  on  Lots. 

From  the  whole  of  the  foregoing  view  we  col- 
lect, that  the  lot  ivS  an  act  of  high  and  solemn 
worship,  as  an  appeal  to  the  God  of  the  earth 
and  of  the  heavens  must  necessarily  he;  and  that 
it  ought  never  to  be  interposed  but  in  matters 
which  warrant  such  an  appeal. 

What  then  are  the  uses  of  the  lot  ?  When  is 
it  proper  ?     And  how  should  it  be  conducted  ? 

The  uses  of  the  lot  are  two. 

1.  It  bears  witness  to  n  particidar  providence. 

It  does  not  merely  acknowledge  God  as  an 
upright  judge  who  will,  at  such  time  as  shall 
please  him,  reward  the  good  and  punish  the 
evil ;  but  it  incorporates  with  an  act  of  worship, 
a  profession  of  faith  that  he  is  present,  and  pro- 
nounces judgment  on  the  spot.  It  is  his  finger 
which  moves  the  lot,  and  his  voice  which  utters 
the  decree !  The  operation,  then,  of  the  lot,  is 
to  check,  by  a  visible  rebuke,  that  forgetfulness 
of  God  to  which  we  are  so  prone,  and  which 
produces,  in  all  tiieir  variety,  the  bitter  fruits  of 
iniquity  and  of  wo — to  assert  liis  dominion  not 
only  over  every  world,  but  over  every  creature, 
and  over  all  the  circumstances  which  relate  to 
that  creature's  happiness  or  misery — to  erect  a 
barrier  against  the  inroads  of  both  speculative 
and  practical  atheism — and  to  strengthen  the 
influence  of  that  pure  and  undefiled  religion 
which  is  built  upon  the  doctrine  of  a  particular 
providence. 


Considerations  on  Lots.  283 

2.  The  lot  is  of  use  to  determine  questions 
among'  men. 

Like  the  oath,  it  is  a  last  resort.  The  one 
appeals  to  God  for  the  sincerity  of  oar  declara- 
tions :  the  other  for  the  direction  of  onr  choice. 
They  are  different  forms  of  acknowledging  his 
government,  but  the  effect  of  both  is  the  same — 
to  put  an  end  to  controversy,  by  putting  a  limit 
to  human  research.  Thus  the  scripture  repre- 
sents them — 

"^nOATH,  "T/ieLoT, 

For  conformation,  is  Causeth  contentions 
an  end  of  all  strife.''^  to  cease.,  and  parteth 
Heb.  vi.  16,  between   the  mighty." 

Prov.  xviii.  18. 

The  parallel  is  exact,  and  leads  to  the  second 
question. 

When  is  the  lot  propei' ') 

In  cases  of  importance ;  which  cannot  be  de- 
cided by  other  means  in  the  exercise  of  our  rea- 
son ;  and  for  the  prevention  or  termination  of 
strife. 

The  case  must  be  important ;  for  appeals  to 
the  living  God  with  thoughtless  frequency,  upon 
mere  trifles,  is  an  impiety  which  cannot  be  in- 
dulged Avith  impunity,  nor  thought  of  without 
horror. 


284  Cotisiderations  on  Lots. 

The  case  must  not  only  be  difficult,  but  such 
as  our  best  discretion  is  unable  to  bring  to  a  com- 
fortable issue. 

For  if  we  appeal  directly  to  the  judgment  of 
God  in  things  which  may  be  fairly  and  wisely 
settled  without  so  appealing,  we  depreciate  the 
value,  by  superseding  the  exercise  of  our  ra- 
tional faculties — we  endeavor  to  disturb  the 
order  which  God  has  established,  subjecting  the 
tribunal  of  human  reason  to  the  tribunal  of  his 
supremacy ;  inasmuch  as  we  attempt  to  abolish 
the  inferior  tribunal  by  withdrawing  causes 
which  are  of  its  proper  jurisdiction  ;  and  thus, 
impeaching  his  wisdom,  not  honoring  his  throne, 
we  provoke  him  rather  to  inflict  his  curse  than 
to  command  his  blessing. 

Cases  in  which  the  lot  may  lawfully  be  used, 
are  such  as  these  : 

The  division  of  property  :  when  the  portions 
of  it  are  adjUvSted  with  impartiality  and  skill; 
and  yet  the  claimants  cannot  agree  upon  the 
distribution.  The  appointment  of  men  to  a  ser- 
vice of  a  peculiar  interest  or  hazard ;  when  more 
than  the  requisite  number  appear ;  and  their  re- 
spective qualifications  or  disqualifications  are 
pretty  equally  balanced. 

The  selection  of  victims  ;  when  several,  in- 
volved in  the  same  crime,  are  under  the  same 
condemnation :  but  the  government,  leaning  to 
mercy,  and  resolving  to  make  an  example,  re- 


Considerations  on  hots.  285 

quires  only  a  part  to  suffer,  and  does  not  name 
the  individuals.  The  reader  can  easily  add 
other  illustrations. 

I  have  only  to  answer  the  third  question  upon 
this  head ;  viz. 

How  should  the  lot  be  conducted? 

As  it  is  an  act  of  worship,  the  glorious  ma- 
jesty of  Him  with  whom  they  have  to  do,  should 
be  present  to  the  minds  of  the  worshipers. 
Passion,  levity,  indiffernce,  should  be  laid  aside. 
The  name  of  God  should  be  invoked  by  prayer ; 
and  the  lot  cast  as  under  his  eye.  When  the 
issue  is  declared,  the  parties  concerned  should 
repress  every  feeling  of  resentment  or  dissatis- 
faction ;  and  acquiesce  with  promptitude  and 
reverence,  as  they  undoubtedly  would  have 
done,  had  their  Almighty  Umpire  rendered  him- 
self visible,  and  given  sentence  in  their  hearing. 

There  cannot  be  a  happier  elucidation  of  the 
right  manner  of  applying  the  lot  than  the  exam- 
ple of  the  apostles  at  the  election  of  a  colleague 
to  fill  the  place  of  Judas.  They  knew  that 
an  apostle  could  be  chosen  only  by  the  imme- 
diate act  of  their  Master  in  heaven.  They  knew, 
however,  that  he  must  have  certain  qualifications 
which  Peter  mentioned.  They  looked  round 
among  their  brethren,  and  found  two  thus  quali- 
fied. They  had  gone  as  far  as  they  could  go  in 
fixing  upon  the  man  by  ascertained  rules,  and 
an  insuperable  difficulty  presenting  itself  in  the 


286  Considerations  on  Lots. 

circumstance  of  two  answering  the  general  de- 
scription, while  only  one  was  wanted,  they  refer 
the  decision  to  their  ascended  Lord.      Having 
set  the  candidates  before  him,  they  j^rayed  and 
said,  Thou,  Lord,  (it  was  the  Lord  Jesus  to  whom 
they  prayed,)    Thou,  Lord,  lohich  knoioest  the 
hearts  of  all  meri,  show  luhethcr  of  these  two  thou 
hast  chosen,  that  he  may  take  part  of  this  minis- 
try and  apostleshij),  from  which  Judas  by  trans- 
gression fell,  that  he  might  go  to  his  own  place. 
And  they  gave  forth  their  lots,  aiid  the  lot  fell 
ujjon  Matthias ;  and  he  was  numbered  with  the 
eleven  apostles.     The  decision  was  received  with 
profound  submission,  as  the  decision  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  himself     Not  a  soul  disputed  it;  not  a 
whisper  was  heard  of  discontent  or  doubt.     Let 
Christians,  in  their  use  of  the  lot,  go  and  do 
likewise. 


Considerations  on  JLols.  287 


No.  III. 


In  the  preceding  numbers  we  have  established 
to  the  satisfaction,  we  hope,  of  the  serious 
reader,  these  two  propo.sitions  : 

1.  That  the  lot  is  a  direct  ajjpeal  to  God  as 
the  Governor  of  the  world,  founded  on  the  faith 
of  a  particular  providence. 

2.  That  when  used  on  proper  occasions,  and 
in  a  proper  manner,  both  of  which  have  been 
explained,  it  is  an  act  of  high  and  acceptable 
worship. 

From  this  doctrine  the  conclusion  is  plain, 
that  all  unnecessary,  light,  careless,  or  customary 
uses  of  the  lot ;  all  uses  of  it,  other  than  such 
as  are  holy,  reverent,  and  warranted  by  the  rules 
of  the  written  word,  are  sinful,  and  to  be 
avoided  as  profanations  of  the  divine  name. 

For  under  the  name  of  God  is  comprehended 
every  thing  by  which  he  makes  himself  known. 
In  the  oath  he  is  solemnly  invoked  as  the  Om- 
niscient, whose  ''  eyes  are  upon  the  truth."  In 
the  lot  a  decision  is  put  into  his  hands  as  the 
Sovereign  Umpire  between  his  creatures,  who 
dispenses  to  them  the  most  pure  and  perfect 
righteousness.  In  both,  his  dominion  over  us, 
his  right  to  dispose  of  us  and  our  affairs,  and 
the  account  which  we  shall  render  to  him,  are 
fully  acknowledged. 


288  Considerations  on  Lots., 

The  sinfulness  of  profane  swearing  consists  in 
treating  with  levity  that  name  of  God  which  the 
spirits  of  heaven  adore ;  in  impairing  our  sense 
of  his  majesty ;  in  weakening  the  restraint  which 
his  authority  imposes  on  the  lusts  of  men ;  and 
diffusing,  in  the  same  proportion,  the  influence 
of  practical  atheism.  If,  then,  as  has  been 
proved,  the  lot  is  an  ordinance  of  the  same  ge- 
neral nature  with  the  oath;  if  it  involves  the 
same  homage  to  the  divine  government  j  if  it  is 
calculated  to  promote  the  same  great  moral  and 
social  purposes,  who  can  doubt  that  the  irreli- 
gious use  of  it  is  of  the  same  complexion  with 
the  irreligious  use  of  the  oath,  and  like  it  be- 
longs to  that  "  taking  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  in 
vain,"  which  ''  the  Lord  will  not  hold  guiltless  7" 
We  question  not  that  many  who  would  on  no 
account  pollute  their  lips  with  a  profane  oath, 
are  in  the  habit  of  misapplying  the  lot  without 
any  conscientious  scruple  whatever.  The  rea- 
son is  to  be  sought  in  their  want  of  instruction 
and  reflection.  That  they  sin  is  not  less  certain 
than  that  the  lot  is  an  appeal  to  God.  Their 
sin,  we  hope,  must  be  referred  to  ignorance ;  but 
that  ignorace  cannot  be  invincible  ;  and  is,  there- 
fore, culpable;  and  the  excuse  arising  from  it 
grows  less  valid  with  every  opportunity  of  in- 
formation, and  with  every  call  to  ''  consider  their 
ways." 


Considerations  on  Lois.  289 

This  deduction  from  the  foregoing  reasoning 
we  might  submit  without  comment  to  the  con- 
science of  our  readers.  It  contains  the  substance 
of  those  conclusions  by  which,  on  many  ac- 
counts public  and  private,  we  wish  them  to  try 
the  use  of  the  lot  as  it  occurs  in  the  present 
state  of  society.  But  as  a  general  truth  is  often 
best  perceived  in  its  details,  we  shall  exemplify 
our  principle  by  pointing  out  several  abuses  of 
the  lot. 

1.  It  is  often  employed  as  a  means  of  deter- 
mining the  spiritual  state  and  character  of  indi- 
viduals.    This  is  done  in  three  ways. 

Cards,  with  texts  of  scripture  on  one  side,  the 
other  being  blank,  are  shuffled  together,  and 
then  dealt  out  to  the  company,  who  read  the 
text  on  their  own  cards,  under  an  impression  of 
its  being  a  divine  message  to  them  respectively. 
To  what  lengths  this  species  of  game  is  carried, 
or  under  what  restrictions  it  is  conducted,  we 
pretend  not  to  know;  but  that  such  a  game 
exists  we  are  perfectly  certain. 

In  place  of  these  cards  the  leaves  of  the  Bible 
are  sometimes  substituted;  the  book  being 
kept  shiit,  a  pin  is  stuck  between  the  leaves,  and 
a  message  from  God  is  looked  for  in  one  of  the 
pages  between  which  the  pin  is  inserted. 

Nearly  allied  to  this,  and  substantially  the 
same,  is  the  practice  of  opening  the  Bible  at  ran- 

Vol.  III.  37 


290  Considerations  on  Lots. 

dom,  and  taking  the  passage  first  caught  by  the 
eye  as  the  message  mtendecl. 

These  methods  of  applying  the  word  of  God 
carry  with  them  the  mark  of  such  puerile  and 
absurd  superstition,  that  it  may  seem  needless 
even  to  mention  them.     But  the  mind  in  distress 
about  eternal  things,  under  the  influence  of  erro- 
neous views  of  religion,  is  often  bewildered,  and 
impelled  by  temptation  to  expedients  very  ill 
calculated  to  yield  relief.     However  incredible 
it  may  be  thought,  this  very  practice  of  turning 
the  Bible  into  a  lottery  has  filled  some  weak  yet 
well  meaning  people  with  unfounded  confidence, 
and  driven  others  almost  to  desperation.     One 
man  finds  on  his  card,  or  selects  with  his  pin,  or 
catches  by  a  sudden  glance  of  his  eye,  an  assu- 
rance of  grace,  or  a  promise  of  eternal  life,  and 
he  is  transported  with  ecstasy.     Another  by  the 
same  means  lights  upon  a  threatening  or  a  curse, 
and  he  is  broken  with  terrors  as  if  an  angel  of 
God  had  written  before  his  eyes  a  sentence  of 
reprobation.     That  which  has  happened  already 
may  happen  again,  and  Christians  should  be  on 
their  guard  against  such  delusion.     Delusion  it 
imdoubtedly  is,  if  words  of  truth  and  soberness 
are  entitled  to  our  regard. 

"  All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 
and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for 
correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness ;  that 
the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  fur- 


Co7isidc7afio7is  on  Lots.  291 

uished  unto  every  good  work."  But  in  order  to 
reap  this  excellent  fruit  from  the  holy  writings, 
they  must  be  studied,  searched,  compared.  They 
are  addressed  to  us  as  rational  beings,  whose 
faculties  are  to  be  exercised  in  discovering  their 
sense,  that  we  may  understand  what  is  the  re- 
vealed will  of  God,  and  what  opinion  we  are  to 
form  of  our  own  character.  Serious  inquiry 
into  these  matters,  with  an  ardent  desire  for  the 
guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  will,  for  the 
most  part,  enable  us  to  determine  with  tolerable 
precision  every  question  affecting  our  substan- 
tial interests.  They  who  are  the  most  devoted 
to  it  are  not  only  the  most  intelligent  Christians, 
but,  ordinarily,  enjoy  the  most  settled  peace,  and 
are  most  abundant  in  the  "  fruits  of  righteous- 
ness which  are  by  Jesus  Christ  to  the  praise  and 
glory  of  God."  But  now  all  this  use  of  the 
scriptures,  and  all  the  blessed  effects  accruing 
from  diligent  and  holy  investigation  of  them, 
are  completely  set  aside  by  converting  them 
into  a  lottery..  The  greatest  and  the  least  ac- 
quaintance with  them  are  exactly  on  a  level. 
Progress  in  the  knowledge  of  their  doctrines, 
precepts,  promises,  is  of  no  avail.  All  com- 
paring of  things  spiritual  with  .spiritual  is  at  an 
end.  There  is  no  more  room  for  self-examina- 
tion. The  trial  of  tempers,  affections,  habits, 
principles,  corruptions,  graces,  declensions,  re- 
vivals, by  the  word  of  God,  is  superseded.     The 


292  Considerations  on  Lots. 

Bible  ceases  to  be  a  rule  of  faith  and  conduct, 
for  every  judgment  is  made  to  rest  upon  an  im- 
mediate i^evelation  obtained  by  lot.  They  who 
resort  to  such  a  summary  method  of  getting  at 
►spiritual  results  ought  in  all  consistency  to  pur- 
sue it  in  temporal  things.  It  would  prevent  the 
trouble  of  much  circuitous  industry ;  it  would 
engender  no  sloth  more  ignoble  than  what  it 
creates  in  the  concerns  of  the  soul ;  and  it  is 
obviously  as  proper  to  decide  by  the  turn  of 
a  shilling  whether  we  shall  plough  or  not,  as  to 
interrogate  the  point  of  a  pin  whether  we  shall 
be  saved  or  perish. 

It  is  surprising  that  they,  who  are  addicted  to 
this  unhallowed  use  of  the  scriptures,  do  not 
perceive  their  self-contradiction;   and  what  is 
infinitely  worse,  their  endeavor   to  draw  into 
self-contradiction  the  God  with  whom  they  have 
to  do.     They  either  lay  some  stress  on  the  issue 
of  their  lottery  speculations  in  the  scripture,  or 
none.     If  none,  the  contradiction  lies  in  their 
attempting    to    produce    something    by   means 
which,  according  to  their  own  concession,  can 
produce   nothing.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  any 
stress  be  laid  on  them,  the  contradiction  lies  in 
attempting  to  make  these  very  means  destroy 
their  own  result,  which  is  always  done  by  rc- 
jjeating  the  experiment.     And  when  the  issues 
differ,  as  in  most  cases  they  will,  one  conclusion 
is  set  off  against  the  other,  and  yet  both  are 


Considerations  on  Lots.  293 

valid.  Thus,  if  a  man  shall  draw  a  blessing 
this  moment,  and  a  curse  the  next,  he  is  bound 
to  believe  himself  both  blessed  and  accursed ; 
for  the  reason  of  his  believing  the  one  is  equally 
strong  for  believing  the  other,  or  else  for  not  be- 
lieving either,  which  would  be  as  gross  a  con- 
tradiction as  the  forn  '^r. 

If  this,  however,  w^ere  all ;  if  in  these  their 
liberties  with  the  Bible  men  of  vain,  irregular 
minds,  merely  displayed  their  own  folly,  they 
might  expose  themselves  at  their  leisure.  But 
they  actually  endeavor  to  draw  the  Most  High 
God  into  self-contradiction.  For  if  they  view 
those  passages  of  his  word  which  are  assigned 
to  them  by  lot,  as  expressing  his  decision,  they 
ought  never  to  try  again,  because  his  "  counsel 
shall  stand."  Whereas,  by  the  very  fact  of 
"  trying  again,"  they  ask  him  to  reverse  his  ow^i 
judgment.  And  thus,  their  characters  remaining 
the  same,  should  they  happen,  as  in  the  example 
above,  to  get  now  a  curse  and  then  a  blessinsr 
they  ascribe  to  him  two  opposite  judgments,  in 
one  of  wiiich  he  must  necessarily  certify  a  false- 
hood. These  are  daring  freedoms  indeed.  The 
very  thought  of  perverting  his  book  of  life  into 
a  book  of  gambling  should  fill  us  with  horror. 

But  let  not  our  reprehension  of  such  profane- 
ness,  for  by  no  softer  name  can  we  call  it,  be  mis- 
understood. Let  us  not  be  suspected  of  deny- 
ing that  portions  of  divine  truth,  suddenly  and 


294  Considerations  on  Lots. 

unexpectedly  presented  to  the  mind,  have  in 
many  instances  been  accompanied  with  extra- 
ordinary eflects.  A  careless  man  has  uninten- 
tionally opened  the  Bible  at  a  place  which  ar- 
rested his  notice  and  flashed  light  in  npon  his 
conscience.  It  was  an  arrow  from  the  quiver  of 
the  Etenal,  shot  into  his  very  heart,  and  it  stuck 
there,  drinking  up  his  spirit,  till  it  was  extracted 
by  the  healing  hand  of  mercy. 

So,  likewise,  many  of  those  who  ''  fear  the 
Lord,  '  and  yet  "  walk  in  darkness  and  have  no 
light,"  proceeding  in  the  path  of  duty,  mourning 
and  depressed,  have  taken  up  their  Bible,  hardly 
knowing  whether  they  should  reatl  it  or  not ; 
and  have  been  directed  to  some  unlooked  for 
passage,  which,  being  powerfully  applied  to 
their  hearts,  has  dispelled  their  fears,  and  hlled 
them  with  "  peace  and  joy  in  believing."  We 
know  that  all  this  is  exploded  by  many,  and 
even  by  vsome  who  are  called,  and  who  ought  to 
be,  ministers  of  the  gospel,  as  blind  fanaticism. 
[f  the  reader  be  of  that  class,  we  have  at  pre- 
sent no  dispute  with  him.  He  is  welcome  to  the 
consolation  of  laughing  at  that  which  multitudes 
of  believers,  now  in  the  church,  and  multitudes 
more  among  the  ''  spirits  of  just  men  made  per- 
fect," can  attest  to  be  a  divdne  reality.  He  has 
much  higher  reason  to  doubt  his  own  Chris- 
tianity than  tlie  sobriety  of  their  experience. 


Considerations  on  Lois.  295 

But  while  we  allow  in  the  amplest  manner  for 
such  cases  as  these — while  we  are  far  from 
"  limiting  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  " — we  cannot 
forget  that  his  sovereignty  is  not  onr  rule  of  ac- 
tion, nor  concede  that  his  interposition  in  such 
instances  as  we  have  mentioned  affords  the 
smallest  countenance  to  the  practice  we  have 
condemned.  "  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony  ; 
if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is 
because  there  is  no  light  in  them."  But  the  sen- 
tence of  "  the  law  and  the  testimony  "  is  not  to 
be  procured  by  cutting  it  up  into  lottery  tickets, 
nor  to  be  used  as  if  the  promises  of  life  and  the 
denunciations  of  death  were  pasted  among  its 
leaves,  to  be  distributed  by  lot.  As  w  ell  might 
the  divine  promises  and  threatenings  be  par- 
celed out  on  a  back-gammon  board,  and  the 
dice  be  rattled  for  a  cJiance  of  heaven  or  of  hell. 
If  every  man,  whose  soul  is  not  lost  to  serious- 
ness, shudders  at  this  idea,  let  him  also  shudder 
at  the  other,  which  is  equally  profane.  It  is  a 
gross  abuse  of  the  lot,  and  therefore  a  prostitu- 
tion of  an  ordinance  by  the  proper  use  of  which 
the  name  of  God  is  glorified. 


296  ConsideratioJis  on  Lots. 


No.  IV. 


We  exposed,  in  our  last  number,  that  signal 
abuse  of  the  lot  which  employs  it  as  a  means  of 
determining  the  spiritual  state  and  character  of 
individuals.  We  proceed  to  point  out  another 
abuse  far  more  extensive  in  its  operation  and 
most  fatal  in  its  effects,  we  mean  games  of 
chance.  Under  this  general  appellation  we  com- 
prehend cards^  dice.,  and  other  games,  of  which 
the  lot  is  an  essential  part. 

The  universal  and  decisive  objection  to  them 
in  every  form  and  under  all  circumstances  is, 
that  they  are  jjrofane  appeals  to  the  divine  throne., 
and  a  luanton  prostitution  of  a  divine  ordinance. 
For  the  premises  which  support  this  conckision 
we  refer  the  reader  to  our  first  two  numbers. 

We  are  aware  that  our  position  will  not 
readily  obtain  the  concurrence  of  many  who  are 
far  from  being  friendly  to  gaming  or  gamblers. 
Both  are  held  in  abhorrence  by  sober-minded 
men  throughout  the  whole  world.  But  their 
opinions  greatly  vary  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
games. 

Some  consider  them,  or  at  least  certain  forms 
of  theni,  as  innocent  and  pleasant  recreations, 
wheji  they  are  not  subservient  to  the  sordid  pas- 
sions ;  that  is,  when  the  parties  either  do  not 
play  for  money,  or  for  no  more  than  is  necessary 
to  keep  up  the  spirit  of  the  competition. 


Considerations  on  Lots.  297 

Others  despise  them  as  frivolous  and  ignoble 
pastimes,  without  attaching  to  them  the  blame 
of  direct  immorality,  unless  they  become  incen- 
tives to  crime  by  becoming  the  sources  of  un- 
lawful gain. 

Many  beyond  doubt  there  are,  whose  indul- 
gence in  these  sports  carries  them  to  no  such  ex- 
cess ;  who  treat  gaming  and  gamesters  with  me- 
rited contempt ;  and  who,  while  they  give  a  lei- 
sure hour  to  the  card-table  or  the  die,  have  not 
the  smallest  suspicion  that  their  amusement  has 
an  irreligious  taint,  or  tends  to  weaken  in  the 
slightest  degree  the  sense  and  effect  of  those  ob- 
ligations by  Avhich  man  is  bound  to  God  his 
Maker. 

With  these  we  remonstrate  :  with  all  who  are 
not  strangers  to  compunctious  feeling  after  they 
have  risen  from  a  game  of  hazard  ;  and  with  all, 
who,  although  they  have  occasionally  speculated 
upon  the  question,  have  neA^er  been  at  the  pains 
to  decide  it  satisfactorily  to  their  own  minds. 

Gaming  has  always  had  an  evil  reputation  in 
all  civilized  countries,  especially  such  as  have 
been  enlightened  by  the  Christian  revelation. 
It  is  both  curious  and  instructive  to  mark  the 
gradations  of  this  sentiment. 

Gamesters  themselves,  in  whom  the  avaricious 
lust  has  not  quite  overpowered  both  integrity 
and  shame,  know  and  feel  that  their  occupation 
is  vile;  for  they  study  secrecy,  not  merely  to 

Vol.  Ill  38 


298  Considerations  on  Lots. 

elude  the  penal  statutes  of  the  law,  but  also  to 
save  appearances  among  men  better  than  them- 
selves. Fame,  low  as  is  her  credit  for  veracity, 
has  put  less  truth  into  her  tattle,  than  is  usual 
even  with  her,  if  there  are  not  in  this  very  city 
of  New  York,  gentlemen^  and  ladies  too,  who 
consume  their  midnights  over  the  fascinating 
chance,  amid  piles  of  money  ;  but  who  could 
never  meet,  in  broad  day,  the  infamy  which  con- 
fronts an  avowed  gambler. 

This,   it  may   be    said,   is    referable   to    that 
wholesome  discipline  by  which  public  opinion 
coerces  the  impudence  of  vice.     For  the  most 
part  it  is  so.     But  public  opinion  is   an  efiect, 
and  like  all  other  effects   must  have  a  cause. 
Set  the  gamblers    aside,   and  there  remains  a 
large  body  of   sober,  discreet  members  of  the 
community  who  never  gamble,  who  view  gaming 
for  money  as  altogether  unjustifiable,  as  a  sys- 
tem of  rapacity  and  plunder,  and  would  on  no 
account  whatever  so  far  degrade  themselves  in 
their  own  eyes  as  to  pollute  their  liands  with 
the  product  of  the  gaming  board.     Yet  a  game 
of  chance,  detached  from  such  applications  of  it, 
they  will  not  stigmatize  as  immoral.     How  did 
they  arrive  at  the  distinction  ?     How  will  they 
show  that  a  thing  lawful  for  the  purposes  of 
amusement  may  not  be  lawful  for  the  purposes 
of  emolument  also  ?     Why  should  that  be  ill- 
gotten  which  is  not  gotten  by  ill  means  1     Why 


Considerations  on  Lots.  299 

should  an  hour  or  two  spent  at  the  card-table 
gratis  be  consistent  with  virtue,  and  that  same 
time   spent  in   the  same   employment  be   con- 
demned as  criminal  the  moment  it  profits  one's 
purse  1     Making"  money  is  not  vicious ;  by  the 
terms  of  the  argument  cards  and  dice  are  not 
vicious ;  and  yet  making  money  by  cards  or  dice 
is  accounted  vicious  by  such  a  strong  and  gene- 
ral coincidence  of  opinion  as  imposes  law  upon 
society.     What  is  there,  then,  to  render  the  com- 
hination  immoral  1     It  cannot  be  mere  excess  of 
ardor  in  the  pursuit  of  lucre.     Labor  may  be 
excessive ;    enterprise  may  be  excessive ;    eco- 
nomy may  be  excessive;    yet  economy,  enter- 
prise, and  labor,  are  not  immoral  methods  of  ac- 
quiring property.     If  the  dreadful  consequences^ 
which  in  all  ages   have  followed  the  spirit  of 
gaming,  be  assigned  as  the  reason,  we  ask  why 
these  dreadful  consequences  have  followed  ?     In 
the  government  of  God  evil  consequences  are 
the  punishment  of  evil  deeds.     The  loss,  disho- 
nor, and  wretchedness,  which  sooner  or  later 
overtake  the  wicked,  are  the  oiatiwal  penalties 
by  which  he  chastises  sin,  vindicates  the  good- 
ness of  his  law,  and  proclaims  his  determination 
to  enforce  its  authority.     The  universe  cannot 
produce  an  example  of  a  train  of  miseries  asso- 
ciated, in  every  age,  in  every  country,  in  every 
state  of  society,  with  any  action  or  set  of  ac- 
tions, in  which  there  is  no  abuse  of  some  divine 


300  Considerations  on  Lots. 

institution.  Thus,  falsehood,  debauchery,  covet- 
ousness,  dishonesty,  revenge,  and  a  thousand 
other  vices,  will  all  be  found,  upon  close  exami- 
nation, to  be  abuses  of  God's  institutions,  and  their 
deplorable  effects  to  be  the  punishments  which 
he  has  annexed  to  them  respectively. 

Now  as  the  fact  is  incontestible,  that  no  curses 
are    more   conspicuous   or   regular   than   those 
which  come  down  upon  the  head  of  the  gam- 
bler, the  inference  is  irrefragable  that  gaming 
must  be  a  most  provoking  abuse  of  some  divine 
institution.     What  is  it  7     We  answer,  the  lot. 
This  solution  alone  goes  to  the  bottom  of  the 
difficulty.     This  alone  explains  the  moral  phe- 
nomena which  invariably  attend  the  system  of 
gaming.    An  ordinance  which  God  has  appointed 
for  the  holy  and  reverend  acknowledgment  of 
his  superintendence  over  the  affairs  of  men,  has 
been  perverted  to  the  ends,  first  of  amusement, 
and  then  of  lucre.     This  perversion  he  resents 
and  punishes.     It  will  be  a  pitiful  evasion  to 
plead  instances  of  persons  who  play  with  mode- 
ration  as   invalidating   our   general   argument. 
There  are  degrees  of  transgression  and  of  cor- 
rection.    "  Lust,  when  it  hath  conceived,  bring- 
eth  forth  sin ;"  but  it  is  not  till  "  sin  is  '^finished  " 
that  it  "  bringeth  forth  death.^^     And  the  death 
which  smites  the  perfected  sin  is  only  smiting 
the  progeny  of  the  parturient  lust.     The  game 
of  chance  and  downright  gambling  are  but  dif- 


Considerations  on  Lots.  301 

ferent  stages  of  the  same  iniquity.  They  have 
always  been  coexistent ;  if  not  in  the  same  indi- 
vidual, yet  certainly  in  the  same  community. 
Let  the  former  take  its  course,  and  the  latter 
inevitably  follows.  So,  when  the  spirit  of  gam- 
bling, which  is  the  matured  offspring  of  the 
game  of  chance,  suffers  the  pains  of  divine  dis- 
pleasure, the  blow  is  aimed  at  both  together. 
It  is  the  principle  which  the  "  Governor  among 
the  nations  "  is  judging.  If  he  strike  it  chiefly 
in  its  most  depraved  state  and  most  offensive 
form,  he  does  not  indicate  that  in  its  earlier 
states  and  less  ruinous  connection  he  tolerates  it 
as  innocent,  but  gives  another  document  that  he 
is  long  suffering  and  slow  to  anger.  If  this  con- 
clusion be  at  any  time  reversed,  it  is  only  a  new 
fact  in  the  history  of  an  old  imposture.  Because 
sentence  against  an  evil  work  is  not  executed 
SPEEDILY,  therefore  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men 
is  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil. 

All  this,  we  are  sensible,  will  be  laughed  to 
scorn  by  those  who  ''  like  not  to  retain  God  in 
their  knowledge."  We  leave  them  to  their  pro- 
pensities and  their  reward.  Judgments  are  pre- 
pared for  scoRNERs,  mul  striates  for  the  hack  of 

FOOLS, 

But  to  those  who  have  never  weighed  the  sub- 
ject seriously,  or  who  are  "  halting  between  two 
opinions,"  as  to  the  lawfulness  or  unlawfulness 
of  the  games  in  question,  we  address  ourselves 


302  Considerations  on  LoU. 

with  better  hope.  They  will  not  contemn,  as 
unworthy  of  their  regard,  the  reasonings  which 
have  already  been  submitted  to  them.  They 
will  hardly  suppose  that  moralists,  divines,  and 
statesmen — Jews,  Greeks,  and  Romans — politi- 
cal legislatures,  and  ecclesiastical  councils — 
public  principle,  and  private  virtue,  would  all 
unite  in  reprobating  an  innocent  amusement. 
But  they  have  united  in  reprobating  games  of 
chance.  A  coiubination  which  seems  impossible 
unless  upon  tlie  ground  of  some  common  and 
strong  conviction  of  their  intrinsic  immorality. 

That  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  has  divinely 
illuminated  the  doctrine  of  morals,  nothing  but 
a  profligate  warfare  against  truth  will  deny. 
Where  that  gospel  reigns  in  its  purest  influence  • 
rectifying  speculative  and  practical  error;  set- 
ting the  heart  at  liberty  from  the  bondage  of 
depravity ;  and  imparting  a  quick  sensibility  to 
the  conscience,  games  of  chance  are  always 
held  in  the  icorst  repute. 

So  long  as  a  man  continues  profane  and 
wicked,  he  can  generally  game  himself,  and 
make  companions  of  those  who  do.  But  when 
"  he  turns  from  his  vanities  to  serve  the  living 
God ;"  when  he  ceases  to  have  "  fellowship  with 
the  unfruitful  works  of  darkness;"  when  his 
delights  are  with  the  saints,  with  the  excellent 
of  the  earth ;  and,  in  the  hope  of  seeing  Jesus 
as  he  is,  he  "  purifies  himself,  even  as  he  is  pure," 


Considerations  on  Lots.  303 

he  cannot  easily  fail  io  throw  away  his  cards 
and  his  dice.  There  have  been,  and  there  are, 
professors  of  religion  who  retain  a  predilection 
for  these  amusements ;  but  they  are  not,  and 
never  have  been,  noted  for  circumspect  and  ex- 
emplary Christians.  Go  the  whole  round  of 
those  numerous  circles  which  encompass  the 
card -table.  You  will  find  selections  of  all  sorts, 
from  low  vulgarity  up  to  accomplished  fashion — 
from  the  refuse  of  the  grog-shop,  up  to  the  most 
brilliant  assemblage  of  the  drawing-room ;  but 
if  you  Ikll  in  with  a  single  card-party,  composed 
of  those  who  "  worship  God  in  spirit  and  in 
truth ;"  who  remember  that  they  were  "  re- 
deemed from  their  vain  conversation,  with  the 
precious  blood  of  Christ ;"  and  who  are  con- 
strained by  his  love,  to  "  live,  not  unto  them- 
selves, but  unto  him  who  died  for  them  and  rose 
again ;" — if  you  fall  in  with  a  single  card-party 
composed  of  such  Christians,  (and  they  are  the 
only  ones  who  shall  see  (xod,)  we  will  give  up 
the  cause. 

What  shall  we  say  to  these  things  1  Shall 
we  say  that  a  point  which  appears  so  serious  to 
the  very  best  of  the  human  race,  is  not  worth 
our  attention  7  Shall  we  say  that  in  deciding 
on  the  lawfulness  or  unlawfulness  of  a  particu- 
lar set  of  actions,  we  will  prefer  the  judgment 
of  the  thoughtless,  the  profane,  the  abandoned, 
to   the  judgment  of  them  who  ''  fear  God  and 


304  Considerations  on  Lots. 

keep  his  commandments  V  Shall  we  say  that 
his  church,  in  which  his  presence  dwells,  and 
his  mercies  are  dispensed,  is  a  worse  guide  in 
morals,  than  the  ''  world  which  lieth  in  wicked- 
ness ?"  Shall  we  say  that  the  Spirit  and  grace 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  teach  his  people  to 
cherish  an  unconquerable  antipathy  against 
practices  which  are  not  forbidden  by  his  law  ? 
Who,  that  has  not  parted  with  reverence  for 
whatever  is  most  holy,  and  just,  and  good,  will 
embrace  the  affirmative  ?  And  who,  that  vindi- 
cates the  game  of  chance,  does  not  embrace  it  1: 
The  reader  perceives  that  the  immorality 
which  we  attribute  to  games  of  hazard,  does  not 
arise  from  circumstances ;  but  is  essential  to  their 
nature.  We  pronounce  them  immoral  and  un- 
lawful, precisely  on  the  ground  of  their  abuse 
and  profanation  of  the  lot,  which  is  an  institu- 
tion of  God  for  special  religious  and  moral  pur- 
poses. We  have  introduced  a  view  of  their 
effects  no  further  than  was  necessary  for  the 
prosecution  of  this  argument.  Not  that  we 
think  these  effects  of  trifling  moment.  They 
are  of  great  and  terrible  moment.  They 
should  never  be  forgotten  by  any  who  incline  to 
more  indulgence  than  sev^erity  toward  the  games. 
By  the  light  of  the  penalty,  men  often  learn  to 
read  the  law.  An  ear  deaf  to  the  voice  of  re- 
ligion, may  sometimss  listen  to  the  admonitions 
of  prudence.     An  eye  which  sees  no  vice,  may 


Considerations  on  Lots.  305 

discern  meanness ;  and  the  fear  of  disgrace  or 
loss  may  control  those  who  who  are  intractable 
by  piety. 

For  the  sake  of  such,  and  for  the  confirmation 
of  those  who  already  obey  the  dictates  of  a  w^ell- 
informed  conscience,  we  shall  give  in  our  next, 
a  sketch  of  some  evils  incident  to  games  of 
chance,  " 


Vol  III  39 


306  Considerations  on  Lots 

No.  V. 
Evils  incident  to  Games  of  Chance. 

We  have  repeatedly  stated,  in  the  course  of 
these  papers,  that  our  great  objection  to  lots  as 
they  are  commonly  used,  is  the  impiety  of  their 
principle ;  and  that  this  constitutes  the  unlaw- 
fulness of  games  of  chance,  such  as  cards^  dice. 
&c. 

x\ssuming  our  doctrine  as  true,  because  it  has 
been  proved,  we  can  view  the  mischiefs  attend- 
ant upon  gaming,  in  no  other  light  than  that  of 
penalties  which  God  inflicts  upon  the  violation 
of  his  law.  On  the  confirmed  gamester  we  do 
not  hope  to  make  an  impression.  An  under- 
standing so  blighted ;  a  conscience  so  seared ; 
a  heart  so  cold,  so  selfish,  and  so  hard,  as  enter 
into  the  composition  of  his  character,  render 
him  deaf  to  remonstrance,  and  put  him.  for  the 
most  part,  out  of  the  reach  of  reform. 

But  they  who  hate  gaming,  while  they  love 
the  game ;  who  play  freely  for  amusement,  while 
they  would,  on  no  account,  play  for  lucre  ;  and 
who  would  shudder  at  the  thought  of  promoting 
either  vice  or  misery,  are  intreated  to  reflect 
whether  there  be  not  such  evils  connected  with 
the  game  of  chance,  even  in  its  least  exception- 
able form,  and  with  its  best  limitations,  as  re- 
quire them  to  abstain  from  it  altogether 


Considerations  on  Lots.  307 

1.  A  most  unprofitable  consumption  of  tiinc^ 
is,  by  general  consent,  among  the  fruits  of  the 
card-table  and  the  dice-board. 

Those  relaxations  and  exercises  which  are 
necessary  to  health,  to  spirits,  and  to  activity, 
ordinarily  carry  with  them  their  own  restric- 
tion. Bodily  weariness,  or  the  cessation  of  that 
charm  which,  for  a  short  period,  the  mind  per- 
ceives in  occupations  calculated  to  relieve  it 
from  its  pressure,  are  of  themselves,  an  admoni- 
tion that  the  end  is  answered  ;  that  the  recrea- 
tion is  over ;  and  that  we  must  return  to  the 
business  of  life.  But  there  is,  in  the  very  nature 
of  the  game  of  chance,  a  perpetual  and  increas- 
ing incitement.  It  tempts,  fascinates,  absorbs. 
The  glass  runs  out  unheeded :  hour  is  added  to 
hour;  and  the  party  rises  fatigued  and  exhausted. 
Exceptions  there  doubtless  are ;  but  that  such 
is  the  tendency  of  the  game,  and  such  its  very 
frequent  effect,  cannot  well  be  denied.  I^et  the 
reader  pause.  Let  him  ask  himself  whether 
this  is  an  appropriation  of  time  fit  for  one  who 
means  either  to  obey  God,  or  do  good  to  man '? 
Let  him  ask,  whether  whole  afternoons  or  even- 
ings, thus  expended,  belong  to  the  ''  redeeming 
of  time;''  or  will  afford  a  peaceful  retrospect 
on  the  bed  of  death.'*  Add  up  the  moments 
which  are  squandered  at  the  card-table,  with- 
out the  least  imaginable  benefit  to  body,  to  soul, 
or  to  societv :  look  at  their  sum  ;  see  how  much 


308  Considerations  on  LoU. 

thou  mightest  have  lived  in  them  to  thyself,  to 
thy  friends,  to  God ;  and  remember  that  it  is  all 
lost,  worse  than  lost,  from  those  days,  for  every 
one  of  which  thou  must  give  an  account. 

2.  An  inseparable  concomitant  of  the  card- 
table  is  intellectual  dissipation. 

The  writer  of  these  remarks  numbers  it 
among  the  mercies  of  God,  that  he  has  seldom, 
very  seldom  indeed,  been  placed  in  circum- 
stances which  compelled  him  to  witness  the  ope- 
ration of  cards  or  dice  on  the  minds  of  those 
engaged.  He  has  seen  enough,  however,  to 
satisfy  him  perfectly  of  their  baneful  influence. 
Can  any  thing  be  more  debasing  or  contempt- 
ible, than  that  men  and  women,  qualified  to 
bear  a  respectable  part  in  conversation,  and 
even  to  adorn  the  social  circle,  should  descend 
from  the  elevation  of  their  own  good  sense  to 
the  level  of  every  stupid  thing,  male  and  female, 
that  can  giggle  or  swear  over  a  pack  of  cards  ! 
Religion  out  of  the  question,  this  is  no  scene  for 
understanding.  Leave  it  to  the  coxcomb  and 
the  coquet,  to  the  sharper  and  the  fool ;  but  let 
not  a  man  or  woman  of  cultivated  mind  be  dis- 
honored by  taking  a  hand.  The  very  atmo- 
sphere which  surrounds  them  is  poison,  at  once 
to  the  intellect  and  the  heart.  It  were  much  to 
be  wished,  that  some  who  have  imperceptibly 
learned  to  degrade  their  lips  with  the  jargon  of 
the  gamester,  could  occasionally  get  such  a  re- 


Considerations  on  Jbots.  309 

proof  as  the  celebrated  Locke  administered  to 
certain  British  noblemen.  ''  One  day,  three  or 
four  of  these  lords  having  met  at  Lord  Ashley's, 
when  Mr.  Locke  was  there ;  after  some  compli- 
ments, cards  were  brought  in  before  scarce  any 
conversation  had  passed  between  them.  Mr. 
Locke  looked  upon  them  for  some  time,  while 
they  were  at  play ;  and,  taking  his  pocket-book, 
began  to  write  with  great  attention.  One  of 
the  lords  observing  him,  asked  him  what  he  was 
writing?  'My  lord,'  says  he  '  I  am  endeavoring 
to  profit,  as  far  as  I  am  able,  in  your  company  : 
for  having  waited  with  impatience  for  the  honor 
of  being  in  an  assembly  of  the  greatest  geniuses 
of  this  age,  and  at  last  having  obtained  the  good 
fortune,  I  thought  I  could  not  do  better  than 
write  down  your  conversation ;  and  indeed,  I 
have  set  down  the  substance  of  what  has  been 
said  for  this  hour  or  two.'  Mr.  Locke  had  no 
occasion  to  read  much  of  this  conversation: 
those  noble  persons  saw  the  ridicule  of  it ;  and 
diverted  themselves  with  improving  the  jest. 
They  quitted  their  play,  and  entering  into  ra- 
tional discourse,  spent  the  rest  of  their  time  in 
a  manner  more  suitable  to  their  character."* 
If  a  similar  record  were  made  of  the  conversa- 
tion of  our  card-parties,  and  published  to  the 
world,  the  ridicule  would  be  intolerable  :  and  if 
it  should  not  deter  men  and  women  of  sense 
from  play  forever  afterwards,  it  would  at  Jeast 

*  Life  of  Mr.  Locke,  prefixed  to  his  work?,  p.  22,  8vo. 


310  Considerations  on  Lots. 

show  how  perfectly,  for  the  sake  of  this  paltry 
pastime,  they  confound  themselves  with  the 
most  arrant  fools  in  nature. 

"  When  blockheads,"  says  a  writer  who  will 
not  be  accused  of  bigotry,  "  when  blockheads 
rattle  the  dice-box,  when  fellows  of  vulgar  and 
base  minds  sit  np  whole  nights  contemplating 
the  turn  of  a  card,  their  stnpid  occupation  is  in 
character;  but  whenever  a  cultivated  under- 
standing stoops  to  the  tyranny  of  so  vile  a  pas- 
sion, the  friend  to  mankind  sees  the  injury  to  so- 
ciety witii  that  sort  of  aggravation  as  would 
attend  the  taking  of  his  purse  on  the  highway, 
if  upon  the  seizure  of  the  felon  he  was  unex- 
pectedly to  discover  the  person  of  a  judge."* 

3.  Play  for  amusement  leads  to  and  per- 
petuates the  whole  system  of  gaming  for  money. 

Very  few,  if  any,  learn  to  play  with  the  de- 
sign of  becoming  gamblers.  But  the  progress 
to  this  issue  is  both  natural  and  common. 
Knowledge  of  the  cards  is  only  a  polite  accom- 
plishment, and  an  occasional  hand  no  more  than 
mere  civility.  What  was  acquiescence  in  the 
first  stage  becomes  choice  in  the  second,  and 
passion  in  the  third.  A  cent,  a  sixpence,  or  a 
quarter  dollar,  merely  to  keep  up  the  spirit  of 
the  game,  is  all  that  many  plead  for  or  allow. 
The  sum  is  mdeed  too  trifling  to  be  an  objection, 
but  are  they  aware  of  the  jwinciple  ?     Do  not 

*  The  Observer,  by  Richard  Cumberland,  No.  22. 


Considerations  on  Lots.  311 

the  languor  of  the  game  without  and  its  anima- 
tion with  the  aid  of  this  pecuniary  stimulus,  very 
strongly  mark  its  tendency  7  Is  not  here  the  com- 
mencement of  a  course  which  carries  the  ad- 
venturer along  with  accelerated  step  to  deep 
and  fatal  stakes  ?  Let  it  not  be  said  that  the 
sober  circles,  which  are  the  object  of  these 
strictures,  never  permit  and  would  be  among  the 
first  to  resist  such  extremes.  They  put  it  seems 
a  rolling  body  on  the  top  of  a  declivity,  set  it  a 
going,  and  stop  it  before  it  reaches  the  bottom ! 
An  admirable  expedient !  Is  there  no  danger  of 
its  slipping  through  their  hands,  or  of  acquiring 
a  velocity  which  they  cannot  check  ?  There  is 
a  much  better  method — JVever  set  it  on  the  decli- 
vity at  all !  Plainly.  Can  these  moderate  and 
cautious  players  be  sure  that  none  of  those 
whom  they  train  up  in  what  they  term  innocent 
pastime,  shall  ever  fall  in  with  others  who  have 
less  scruple  ?  Have  they  never  heard  of  a  youtli 
who  received  the  rudiments  of  his  gaming  edu- 
cation from  his  circumspect  friends,  becoming 
in  consequence  of  this  very  acquisition,  the  com- 
panion of  vile  associates,  and  the  victim  of  their 
crimes  7  Have  they  never  heard  of  an  unhappy 
fair  one,  initiated  in  the  mystery  of  the  card- 
table  under  her  father^s  roof,  being  hurried 
away  with  the  maddening  fascination  till  her 
virtue  and  her  peace  were  the  price  of  redemp- 
tion for  her  forfeited  purse  '^ 


312  Considerations  on  Lots. 

Such  things  have  been,  and  such  things  may 
again  be.  The  very  possibility  of  their  recur- 
rence should  inspire  every  one  who  values  ho- 
nor, truth,  and  purity,  with  a  detestation  of  the 
sports  which  conduct  to  them,  and  impel  him  to 
lift  up  his  voice  and  his  example  against  their 
introduction  or  use  in  any  shape  or  any  circum- 
stances. The  amusement  which  they  can  afford 
will  be  a  miserable  compensation  for  a  ruined 
wife  or  daughter,  son,  or  brother,  or  sister. 
Considering  the  snares  which  beset  the  inexpe- 
rienced foot,  all  the  vigilance  of  parents  and 
friends  is  little  enough  to  keep  our  youth,  the 
hope  of  our  land,  from  error  and  harm. 

It  is  neither  right  nor  kind ;  it  is  wrong,  and 
sinful,  and  cruel,  to  fit  them  for  the  most  profli- 
gate company  and  deeds.  Nothing  does  this 
more  effectually  than  an  acquaintance  with 
games  of  chance ;  for  there  is  no  dissipated  as- 
semblage to  which  it  is  not  a  recommendation 
To  have  the  dearest  parts  of  ourselves  in  a  state 
of  complete  readiness  for  the  most  alluring  temp- 
tation to  the  worst  of  crimes,  is,  to  say  the  least 
of  it,  notwithstanding  every  safeguard,  a  most 
dangerous  qualification.  Keep  them  ignorant 
of  cards  and  dice,  and  you  erect  the  strongest 
human  barrier  against  the  seductions  of  gaming, 
Teach  them  the  art,  and  that  barrier  is  thrown 
down ;  thrown  down  by  your  own  hands ;  thrown 
down  to  the  breakins:  of  vour  own  heart ;  and 


Considerations  on  Lois.  313 

when  the  destruction  to  which  you  yourself  have 
been  accessary  overtakes  your  children,  you  sit 
down  and  vent  the  bitterness  of  your  soul  in 
unavailing  complaint.  The  benefits  of  gaming 
none  but  a  villain  or  a  fool  will  undertake  to 
display !  Its  mischiefs  are  palpable,  horrible, 
endless !  Its  history  is  written  in  tears  and 
blood.  Its  vouchers  are  the  most  fell  passions 
of  the  human  heart,  and  the  most  fearful  ex- 
cesses of  human  depravity.  And  yet,  while 
facts,  which  ought  to  send  alarm  and  abhorrence 
along  every  shivering  nerve,  are  repeating  their 
admonitions  every  hour,  parents — parents  pro- 
fessing themselves  Christians — do,  both  by  ex- 
ample and  precept,  put  their  own  children 
directly  into  the  gambler's  path  !  And  as  if  the 
temptations  which  assault  tlie  age  of  puberty 
were  too  few,  too  feeble,  or  too  tardy,  parents 
themselves  anticipate  the  work  of  corruption, 
antedate  the  progress  of  sin,  and  apply  their 
own  ingenuity  to  help  in  bringing  forward  their 
children  to  a  forced  maturity  of  vice.  We  can- 
not exempt  from  this  censure  any  w4io  permit 
gaming,  under  whatever  form  or  pretext,  in  their 
houses,  and  who  do  not  discountenance  it  in 
their  offspring,  or  others  subjected  to  them,  by 
their  severest  displeasure.  It  admits  not  of  dis- 
pute, that  if  the  orderly  and  reputable  members 
of  society  were  utterly  to  discard  the  game  of 
chance,  gambling  would  soon  be  destroyed  or 
Vol.  III.  40 


314  Considerations  on  Lots. 

confined  to  the  spendthrift  and  the  thief.  But 
how  can  we  hope  for  such  a  blessed  reformation, 
when,  besides  notorious  gaming  houses,  many 
who  figure  in  the  higher  classes  of  society  play, 
and  play  deep,  in  their  own  houses.  Could 
these  public  and  private  seminaries  of  all  that 
is  base  and  abominable  be  exposed  at  one  view 
to  the  eye,  w^e  will  not  say  of  a  Christian,  but  of 
a  political  moralist,  he  would  almost  despair  of 
our  country.  The  rage  for  play  w^as  lately  so 
great  in  the  city  of  New  York,  that  public  prints 
ascribed  the  desertion  of  the  theatre  to  the  mul- 
titude of  gambling  parties  !  A  rare  account  of 
the  virtue  taught  and  learned  at  the  theatre  we 
must  own !  We  ask  a  plain  question.  Had 
cards  and  dice  not  been  reputable  as  an  amuse- 
ment, could  they  ever  have  become  so  general  as 
a  vice  ?  And  is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  those 
places  of  vile  resort,  the  public  gaming  houses, 
should  be  crowded  with  our  youth  ?  Is  it  not  a 
perfectly  natural  consequence  of  play  among 
heads  of  families,  merely  to  relieve  a  tedious 
hour,  that  children,  apprentices,  and  servants, 
should  pursue  the  practice  farther,  and  at  last 
plunder  parents  and  masters,  to  meet  the  de- 
mands of  the  card-table  and  the  billiard-room  ? 
The  number  of  those  fine  young  gentlemen  who 
have  nothing  to  do ;  heirs  of  estates  with  pock- 
ets full  of  money ;  lawyers  and  merchants' 
clerks ;  idlers,  who,  by  a  sad  misnomer,  are  nick- 


Considerations  on  Lots.  315 

named  students ;  beaux,  whose  greatest  adroit- 
ness is  shown  in  keeping  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
bailiff  at  the  suit  of  tailors,  and  slioemakers, 
and  washerwomen ;  ct  id  genus  onitie,  which 
flock  about  the  gaming  houses,  is  incredible  to 
those  who  have  no  opportunities  of  observing 
them.  But  it  is  not  more  lamentable  than  true, 
that  from  nine  in  the  morning  till  eleven  at 
night,  and  often  much  later,  these  nuisances  are 
attended  by  a  succession  of  youth.  Some  spend 
there  the  chief  part  of  the  twenty-four  hours, 
and  there  are  always  adepts  in  iniquity  to  decoy 
the  inexperienced  and  uncorrupted.  Why  is 
the  suppression  of  these  enormities  so  difficult  ? 
Why  are  laws  so  easily,  so  openly,  and  so  impu- 
dently evaded  7  One  reason  is  plain — gaming 
grows  less  infamous.  It  grows  less  infamous 
because  respectable  people  of  both  sexes  game. 
The  number  of  gamesters  is  so  great  because 
they  are  kept  in  countenance  by  so  many  who 
play  only  for  amusement.  Let  the  experiment 
be  fairly  tried.  Let  the  latter  give  up  their  sjwrt, 
and  we  shall  soon  see  multitudes  of  the  former 
give  up  their  lust.  The  community  would  spee- 
dily be  rid  of  legions  of  those  fiends  who  now 
haunt  its  retreats,  and  prey  upon  its  strength. 
That  immovable  selfishness;  that  cold-blooded 
malignity  ;  that  hardened  impiety  ;  that  fell  des- 
peration, ready  for  fraud,  for  robbery,  for  mur- 
der, for  suicide,  which  form  the  character  of  a 


310  Considerations  on  Lots. 

finished  gamester,  impose  upon  every  man  a  so- 
lemn obligation  to  resist  the  gaming  system  in 
all  its  parts  and  progress.  Every  man,  whom 
the  extinction  of  virtuous  feeling  has  not  pre- 
pared for  adding  to  the  dishonor  and  the  mise- 
ries of  human  life,  will  perceive  the  obligation 
in  proportion  as  he  reasons  correctly,  and  applies 
the  discoveries  of  his  understanding  to  the  regu- 
lation of  his  conduct.  All  our  principles  on  this 
subject  are  false,  and  all  our  deductions  from 
them  impertinent,  or  it  follows,  that  every  one 
who  plays  at  cards  or  dice  is  responsible,  to 
the  whole  extent  of  the  influence  of  his  exam- 
ple in  preserving  the  knowledge  and  practice  of 
gaming,  for  all  its  tremendous  effects  on  body 
and  soul,  on  property,  character,  and  happiness 
— on  the  best  interests  of  his  fellow-creatures 
here,  and  on  their  best  hopes  for  the  eternal 
world. 


AN  ACT 

CONCERNING   FAITH  AND  JUSTIFICATION, 


DRAWN  UP  BV  DR.  MASON, 


EMITTED  BY  THE 


ASSOCIATE    REFORMED    CHURCH    IN    NORTH    AMERICA 


JUNE   12,  1798, 


AN    ACT 

CONCERNING  FAITH  AND  JUSTIFICATION ; 


EMITTED    BY    THE 


ASSOCIATE   REFORMED   CHURCH    IN   NORTH    AMERICA, 


JUNE  12,  ]798. 


The  ministers  and  elders  in  synod  assembled, 
finding  that  dangerous  errors  are  entertained  and 
propagated  concerning  the  doctrines  of  saving 
faith  and  of  j  astification,  feel  it  their  duty  to  de- 
clare, and  by  this  act  they  do  declare,  what  they 
conceive  the  holy  scriptures  to  teach  on  these 
important  points,  chiefly  as  they  are  at  present 
perverted  or  opposed. 

I.  Of  the  ai^propriation  and  assurance  of  faith. 

Faith,  in  its  general  idea,  is  assent  to,  and  re- 
liance  on,   testimony.      Its   peculiar  character 


320  An  act  concerning 

must  arise  from  the  testimony  on  which  it  is 
founded.  That  divine  faith,  therefore,  by  which 
alone  sinners  are  saved,  must  he  an  assent  to, 
and  reliance  on,  the  divine  testimony,  as  exhi- 
bited in  the  written  word.  The  gospel  is  ex- 
pressly termed  the  record  or  testimony,  which 
God  gave  of  Ids  Son,  and  faith  a  believing  of 
this  record.  (1  John  v.  10.)  In  perfect  har- 
mony with  the  scriptures,  its  general  character, 
its  special  office,  and  its  true  and  only  warrant, 
are  comprehended  in  the  concise  and  correct  de- 
finition of  the  shorter  catechism.  ''  Faith  in  Je- 
sus Christ  is  a  saving  grace,  whereby  we  receive 
and  rest  upon  him  alone  for  salvation  as  he  is 
offered  to  us  in  the  gospel." 

1.  In  its  general  character,  which  it  has  in 
common  with  other  benefits  of  the  covenant,  it 
is  said  to  be  a  saving  grace. 

A  grace,  or  a  free  gift ;  an  unmerited  favor. 
It  is  the  GIFT  of  God,  and  that  both  in  its  princi- 
ple and  in  its  exercises.  Christians  believe  even 
as  the  Lord  giveth  to  every  man.  And  it  is  he 
who  deals  out  to  every  man  the  measure  of  faith. 

A  grace — being  purchased  for  us  by  Christ's 
precious  blood,  and  freely  bestowed  on  us  for  his 
sake.  It  is  given  unto  us  in  the  behalf  of 
Christ  to  believe  on  him. 

A  grace — because  it  is  wrought  in  the  heart 
of  a  sinner  by  the  free  Spirit  of  God,  through 
the  instrumentality  ^f  the  word.     For  this  rea- 


Fault  and  JuatiJicaUQiv.  o^l 

son  he  is  called  the  Spirit  of  faith  ;  and  the  pea- 
pie  of  God  believe  according  to  the  working  of 
HIS  MIGHTY  POWER,  which,  by  the  Spirit,  ho 
wrought  in  Christ,  when  he  raised  him  from  the 
dead,  and  set  him  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the 
heavenly  j^kiccs.  And  this  faith,  so  produced^ 
Cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  op 
God. 

This  faith  saves.  As  its  origin  is  grace,  so  its 
issue  is  salvation  from  sin  and  from  wrath  both 
here  and  hereafter.  He  that  believeth  shall  be 
saved;  he  hath  everlasting  life,  and,  shall  not 
COME  into  condemnation  J  but  shall  receive  the  end 
of  his  faith,  even  the  salvation  of  his  soul. 

2.  The  special  office  of  faith  is  to  receive,  and 
rest  upon  Christ  alone  for  salvation.  But,  m  or- 
der to  have  just  views  of  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject, wx  are  previously  to  consider  the  true  and 
only  warrant  of  faith,  which  is  the  free  offer  of 
Christ  to  us  i?i  the  gospel. 

All  that  is  necessary  for  elucidating  tliis  point 
may  be  summed  up  in  the  following  propositions  : 
(1.)  God  hath  made  a  grant  of  his  Son,  Jesus 
Christ,  as  an  all-sufficient  Savior,  to  a  lost  and 
perishing  world.  He  hath  not  merely  revealed 
a  general  knowledge  of  him,  but  has  directly 
and  solemnly  given  him  to  sinners  as  such  that 
they  may  be  saved.  God  so  loved  the  world  that 
he  GAVE  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  he* 
Vol  III  ^      41 


o22  An  act  concernin 


o 


lieveth  in  him  should  not  perish,  hut  have  everlast- 
ing life, 

(2.)  Thin  gi^i  i^  absolutely  free ;  independent, 
in  every  possible  manner,  on  the  worthiness  or 
good  qualities  of  men.  This  is  essential  to  the 
very  nature  of  his  gift.  Redemption  through  the 
blood  of  Christ  is  according  to  the  riches  of  his 
grace.  It  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  ivorthy  of  all 
acceptation,  that  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world 
to  save  the  chief  of  sinners. 

(3.)  This  gift  is  indiscriminately  to  all  the 
hearers  of  the  gospel,  and  to  every  one  of  them 
in  particular.     Unto  us  a  child  is  born ;  unto  us 
a  Son  is  given.     The  'word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in 
THY  mouth,  atid  in  thine  heart ;  that  is,  the  ivord 
of  faith  ichich  we  preach :  That  if  thou  shalt 
confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shall 
believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him 
from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.     No  sins, 
however  enormous  or  aggravated,  place  any  sin- 
ner beyond  the  reach  of  this  liberal  grant.     The 
very  terms  in  which  it  is  conveyed  suppose  the 
objects  of  it  to  be  unbelieving,  unrighteous,  and 
even  obstinate  in  transgression.  God  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him 
might  not  perish ;  manifestly  implying  that  they 
to  whom  he  is  given  are  unbelievers.     The  Lord 
Christ,  whose  invitations  to   sinners   must  be 
grounded  on  the  Father's  gift  of  him  as  the  co- 
venant  of  the   people,  thus   addresses   them : 


FaWi  and  Justification.  323 

Hearken  unto  7ne,  ye  stout  hearted,  that  arc  far 
firom  righteousness ;  I  bring  near  my  7'ighteous- 
ness. 

The  Savior  thus  given  God  hath  made  it  the 
duty  of  every  one  who  hears  the  gospel  to  ac- 
cept, that  he  "may  be  saved;  and  he  cannot  re- 
ject the  gift  but  at  the  peril  of  his  soul.  This 
is  the  commandment  of  God,  that  ice  should  he- 
Heve  on  the  name  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ. 

Novv^j  the  divine  command  requiring  all  the 
hearers  of  the  gospel  to  receive  the  Lord  Jesus 
for  salvation,  it  is  manifest  that  he  is  freely  given 
in  the  gospel  offer  to  every  one  of  them  in  par- 
ticular. Moreover,  all  the  hearers  of  the  gospel 
are  either  believers  or  unbelievers.  That  Christ 
was  offered  to  believers  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  they  have  received  him,  and  are  saved  by 
him ;  and  that  he  is  offered  to  unbelievers  is  no 
less  evident,  because  they  will  be  condemned  for 
their  unbelief  He  that  believeth  not  is  condemned 
aheady,  because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name 
of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  But  the  right- 
eous Lord,  who  loveth  righteousness,  will  not 
condemn  sinners  for  rejecting  an  offer  which 
was  never  made. 

From  all  this  it  results,  that  God  hath  laid  in 
his  word  a  firm  foundation  for  the  faith  of  sin- 
ners— that  they  have  his  own  umrrant,  and 
therefore  a  perfect  rights  to  take  the  Lord  Jesus 


324  An  act  concerning 

in  all  his  grace  and  fullness  for  their  own  salva- 
tion m  particular. 

Now,  as  saving  faith  must  correspond  both 
with  the  warrant  of  the  divine  testimony,  and 
with  tlie  right  to  an  offered  Savior  which  that 
warrant  creates,  it  is  properly  asserted  to  be  a 
receiving  and  restiyig  upon  Christ  alone  for  sal- 
vation as  he  is  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel. 

It  is  to  be  carefully  noted,  that  the  true  and 
only  object  of  faith  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
himself,  set  forth  and  given  to  sinners  as  such. 
in  the  free  promise  of  the  gospel ;  and  that,  in 
believing,  we  receive  and  rest  upon  him,  and 
upon  him  alone,  in  all  those  relations,  for  all 
those  ends,  and  in  that  manner  which  the  divine 
testimony  exhibits,  and  thus  set  to  our  seal  that 
God  is  true. 

This  receiving  of  Christ  and  resting  upon  him 
are  usually  termed  the  apjyrojyriation  and  assu- 
rance of  faith.  By  the  former  we  take  the 
Lord  Jesus,  who  is  ours  in  the  general  grant,  to 
be  ours  in  personal  possession.  By  the  latter 
we  trust  in  him  that  we  vshall  be  saved;  be- 
lieving, that  whatever  he  did  for  any  of  the  hu- 
man race  he  did  for  us,  and  that  whatever  God 
liath  promised  to  his  people  shall  be  performed 
unto  us.  These  are  not  to  be  considered  as  dif- 
ferent acts,  but  as  essential  properties  of  the 
grace  of  faith.  And  that  they  are  essential  to  it 
is  most  demonstrable. 


Faith  and  Justification.  325 

First,  then ;  Appropriation  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
to  ourselves,  for  our  own  salvation  m  particular, 
is  essential  to  saving  faith — For, 

1.  Without  such  an  appropriatioii  faith  could 
not  answer  to  its  warrant  in  the  divine  testi- 
mony, which,  as  hath  been  proved,  tenders  Christ 
to  every  one  in  particular ;  nor  to  the  authority 
of  the  divine  command,  which  requires  every 
one  in  particular  to  take  him  thus  tendered, 

2.  Without  such  an  appropriation  there  would 
he  no  material  difference  between  the  faith  of 
God's  people,  and  that  of  hypocrites  or  devils. 
Both  may  believe  in  general  that  Christ  died  for 
sinners ;  that  God  is  in  him,  reconciling  the  world 
unto  himself;  that  he  is  able  to  save  sinners,  and 
that  many  shall  be  saved  by  him.  Mere  assent 
to  the  abstract  truth  of  the  gospel  does  not  and 
cannot  imply  any  complacency  or  interest  in  the 
salvation  which  it  reveals.  But  that  faith  which 
may  be  found  in  the  devils  and  the  damned  can 
in  no  sense  be  saving  faith. 

3.  The  condemnation  of  the  law  is  particular. 
Cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things 
'which  are  luritten  in  the  book  of  the  laio  to  do 
them.  When  the  Holy  Ghost  convinces  of  sin, 
the  sinner  sees  himself  in  particular  shut  up  un- 
der the  curse.  Thou  art  the  man,  says  the  vio- 
lated law;  lani  the  man,  replies  his  awakened 
conscience.  Nor  is  it  possible  that  he  should 
have  peace  or  safety  till  the  blood  of  Christ 


326  An  act  concerning 


'O 


purge  his  conscience,  and  he,  for  himself,  be  de- 
livered from  the  curse.  Therefore,  if  there  were 
not  in  believing  a  particular  application  of  Christ 
to  the  soul,  the  curse  of  the  law  would  be  more 
efficacious  to  destroy  than  the  blood  of  Christ  to 
save. 

4.  Salvation  is  particular.  A  sentence  of 
justification  must  pass  upon,  and  a  work  of 
sanctification  be  wrought  in,  everij  one  who  shall 
see  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  justification,  and 
sanctification,  and  whatever  else  belongs  to  the 
salvation  of  the  gospel,  flow  unto  us  only  in  and 
through  Christ  Jesus.  And  as  we  receive  his 
benefits  in  believing ;  as  they  cannot  be  sepa- 
rated  from  himself;  and  as  they  are  all  commu- 
nicated by  particular  application  to  our  souls,  it 
is  evident  that  the  faith  which  embraces  him, 
and  with  him  his  benefits,  is  a  faith  of  particu- 
lar appropriation.  He  is  made  of  God  unto  us 
icisdom^  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and 
redemption. 

5.  The  experience  of  God's  people,  as  it  is  de- 
scribed in  his  word,  proves  that  their  faith  is  an 
appropriating  faith.  Whether  they  rejoice  in 
the  light,  or  mourn  under  the  hidings,  of  his 
countenance,  they  equally  claim  him  as  their 
God,  even  their  oum  God.  /  will  love  thee,  O 
Lord,  MY  stj'cngth.  The  Lord  is  my  rock,  and 
MY  fortress,  and  my  deliverer;  my  God,  my 
strength,  in  whom  I  will  trust :  my  buckler,  and 


Faith  and  Justification.  327 

the  horn  of  my  salvation,  and  my  high  tower. 
Thou  art  the  God  of  my  strength :  Why  dost 
thou  cast  me  off  7  Why  go  I  mourning  because 
of  the  oppression  of  the  enemy  7  O  send  out  thy 
light  and  thy  truth — Then  icill  I  go — unto  God 
MY  exceeding  joy :  Yea,  upon  the  haiy  loill  I 
praise  thee,  O  God,  my  God. 

6.  The  scripture  continually  ascribes  this  ap- 
propriation to  faith.  It  is  illustrated  by  figures, 
than  which  nothing  can  more  strongly  mark  its 
appropriating  quality.  It  receives  the  Lord  Je- 
sus as  a  gift — puts  him  on  as  a  garment— ;/Zees  to 
him  as  a  refuge — lays  hold  of  him  as  a  hope— 
claims  him  as  a  portion— ^eec/s  upon  him  as  the 
living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven. 
This  indeed  is  the  very  life  of  a  believer's  soul, 
the  fountain  of  his  hope,  his  peace,  his  consola- 
tion, that  Christ  is  his  Savior,  and  God,  in  Christ, 
his  covenant-God. 

Secondly.  In  believing  we  not  only  appropriate 
the  Lord  Jesus  to  ourselves,  but  are  persuaded 
that  whatever  he  did  for  the  salvation  of  sinners 
he  did  for  us,  and  that  whatever  God  has  pro- 
mised to  his  people  shall  be  performed  to  us. 
This  persuasion  is  the  assurance  of  faith,  and  is 
inseparable  from  it. 

1 .  Faith  being  an  assent  to  and  a  reliance  on 
testimony,  respects  nothing  but  the  veracity  of 
the  testifier.  It  is  this  which  distinguishes  it 
from  all  other  principles,  and  which  is  essential 


32B  An  act  concerning 

to  every  kind  of  it,  in  every  dep^ree,  and  under 
every  circumstance.  Now  the  testimony  of  the 
living  God  hath  set  forth  the  Lord  Jesus  as  a 
propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood.  There 
can  be  no  medium  betw^een  receiving  him  by 
faith  and  rejecting  him  by  unbelief;  and  in  be- 
lieving we  can  believe  nothing  but  what  God 
hath  testified,  because  this  is  the  sole  ground  of 
our  faith.  But  he  hath  testified,  that  whatever 
Christ  did  as  a  Savior  he  did  for  them  who  re- 
ceive him ;  and  that  to  them,  and  every  one  of 
them,  all  the  exceeding  great  and  precious  pro- 
mises shall  certainly  be  accomplished.  I  can- 
not, therefore,  cast  my  soul  upon  Christ  for  sal- 
vation without  believing  the  divine  testimony ; 
and  this  assures  me,  that  as  a  believer  I  in  par- 
ticular shall  be  saved ;  so  that  my  faith,  corres- 
ponding with  God's  testimony,  necessarily  in- 
cludes a  persuasion  of  my  own  salvation  in  par- 
ticular. 

2.  In  the  scripture  faith  is  uniformly  opposed 
to  doubting.  If  ye  have  faith  and  doubt  not. 
O  thou  of  little  faith^  wherefore  didst  thou  doubt  ? 
If  a  man  lack  icisdoni  let  him  ask  of  God— but 
let  him  ask  in  faith,  nothing  ivavcring ;  but 
doubting  being  the  want  of  assurance,  and  being 
the  reverse  of  faith,  assurance  is  necessarily  of 
the  essence  of  faith. 

3.  The  testimony  of  God's  word  to  this  pro- 
perty of  faith  is  clear  and  decisive;    It  forms  the 


Faith  and  Justification.  329 

chief  part  of  the  definition  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  has  given.  Now  faith  is  the  substance  of 
things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen* 
We  are  exhorted  to  drav)  nigh  to  the  holiest  of 
all  until  true  hearts^  and  in  the  fill  assurance  of 
faith.  Where  the  truth  contended  for  is  doubly 
established.  (1.)  By  direct  assertion;  The  as- 
surance of  faith,  i.  e.  the  assurance  which  be- 
longs to  faith  ;  or  else  the  expression  is  destitute 
of  meaning.  (2.)  By  allowing  degrees  in  this 
assurance— ;/ie  full  assurance  of  faith.  Which 
implies  the  existence  of  the  assurance  itself;  for 
a  thing  which  has  no  being  cannot  have  degrees 
of  being.  These  passages  alone,  and  especially 
in  connection  witli  others  which  represent  faith 
as  building  on  Christ  the  foundation,  trusting  in 
him,  resting  and  leaning  on  him,  do  fully  prove 
that  assurance  is  of  the  nature  of  faith. 

4.  The  fruits  of  faith  do  also  bespeak  assu- 
rance. Believers  have  peace  in  their  con- 
sciences— they  are  freed  from  the  dominion  of 
sin — they  overcome  the  world — they  receive 
from  the  fullness  of  Christ  Jesus — they  mind  the 
things  of  the  Spirit,  &c.  All  these  blessings  are 
the  subject  of  promise,  and  are  enjoyed  only  in 
the  way  of  believing  the  promise.  But  how  can 
he  believe  the  promise  who  has  no  confidence  in 
it  ?  and  how  can  a  sinner  have  relief  from  the 

*  The  original  word,  rendered  •'  evidence,"  oignifies  demonstra- 
tion— argument  which  forbids  reply. 

Vol   III  42 


330  An  act  co7iccrning 

terrors  of  the  law  7  How  can  this  enlightened 
conscience  be  pacified?  Much  more,  how  can 
he  walk  in  newness  of  life,  unless  he  be  per- 
suaded that  he  in  particular  is  reconciled  to 
God ;  that  he  in  particular  shall  be  saved ;  and 
unless  he  repose  his  soul  upon  the  faithfulness  of 
God  in  Christ,  who  hath  promised  to  do  to  him 
and  for  him  far  more  abundantly  than  he  can 
ask  or  think  ? 

Against  this  doctrine  of  faith  it  cannot  be 
justly  objected,  "  that  it  requires  every  one  who 
hears  the  gospel  to  believe  that  Christ  died  for 
him  in  particular,  and  thus  terminates  in  the 
error  of  universal  redemption." 

This  consequence  is  avoided  by  a  very  plain 
and  important  distinction  between  faith  as  a  ge- 
neral duty  and  as  a  special  grace.  As  a  general 
duty,  it  is  to  believe  assuredly  on  the  testimony 
of  God^  who  cannot  lie,  that  Christ  Jesus  is 
freely  given  in  the  gospel  offer  to  me  in  particu- 
lar ;  and  to  take  him  to  myself,  as  the  Father's 
gift,  for  my  own  particular  salvation ;  persuaded, 
in  thus  receiving  him,  that  I  shall  be  saved.  It 
is  this  receiving  of  Christ  which  converts  the 
indefinite  promise  of  salvation  to  believers  into 
a  promise  of  salvation  to  me  in  particular ;  and 
without  this  appropriation  of  Christ  none  have 
a  right  to  conclude  that  he  died  for  them  and 
that  they  shall  be  saved.  As  a  special  grace, 
faith  does  actually  receive  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 


Faith  and  Jastijication.  331 

thus  binds  the  divine  faithfulness  to  the  particu- 
lar salvation  of  him  who  believes ;  so  that  he 
may  warrantably  say  and  ought  to  be  persuaded, 
and  in  some  measure  is  persuaded,  that  what- 
ever Christ  did  for  sinners  he  did  for  /wm,  and 
whatever  God  hath  promised  to  his  people  shall 
be  accomplished  to  Jiim. 

Nor  can  it  be  objected,  that  "  this  doctrine  of 
faith,  representing  true  believers  as  at  all  times 
undoubtedly  assured  of  their  own  gracious  state, 
is  inconsistent  with  Christian  experience,  and 
with  the  encouragements  held  forth  in  scripture 
to  those  who  labor  under  doubts  and  fears ;  and 
tends  to  make  sad  the  hearts  of  those  whom 
God  hath  not  made  sad." 

The  question  is  not  concerning  a  believer's 
opinions  of  his  state,  which  are  influenced  not 
only  by  his  faith  but  by  his  feelings,  by  tempta- 
tions, by  corruptions,  and  especially  by  unbelief, 
but  concerning  the  nature  of  his  faith  itself. 
That  this  is  sometimes  strong,  sometimes  weak, 
yea,  so  weak  that  he  cannot  discern  its  opera- 
tions, and  even  disputes  its  existence,  is  most 
certain ;  but  faith  he  has,  notwithstanding.  His 
being  unconscious  of  it  at  the  time  does  no  more 
prove  the  want  of  it,  than  unconsciousness  of  the 
vital  motions  of  the  body  proves  a  state  of  death. 
Though  his  faith  be  small  as  a  grain  of  mustard- 
seed,  and  feeble  as  the  first  motion  of  embryo 
life,  it  is  essentially  the  same  with  the  branch- 
ing tree,  and  with  the  active  energy  of  a  perfect 


332  An  act  concctming 

man.     It  is,  therefore,  as  really  opposed  to  every 
kind  of  doubting  in  its  faintest  as  in  its  most 
vigorous  exercise.     The  difference  lies  only  in 
degree.       Doubting    believers    there    are,    but 
doubting  faith  there  cannot  be.     In  so  far  as  a 
believer  doubts,  he  is  under  the  power  of  vmbe- 
lief ;  for  be  his  darkness  and  his  fears  what  they 
may,  they  prevail  exactly  in  the  same  proportion 
as  his  faith  fails.     A  doubting  faith,  then,  is  equi- 
valent to  an  unbelieving  faith ;  or,  which  is  the 
same  thing,  a  believing  unbelief.     But  this  is  a 
contradiction.     It  is  therefore  undeniable,  that 
in  the  midst  of  conflict  and  dejection,  the  be- 
liever does  and  cannot  but  trust,  and  that  for 
himself,  in  the  mercy  and  faithfulness  of  his  co- 
venant-God.     This   is   evinced  to  others,   and 
may  be  evinced  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  own 
soul  by  his  clinging  to  the  Lord  Christ  as  his 
only  hope,  and  by  his  horror  at  the  thought  of 
relinquishing  his  claim  to  the  promises,  and  to 
the  living  God  as  his  portion.     Poor  as  he  may 
call  his  hope,  he  would  not  barter  it  for  millions 
of  worlds.     This  bespeaks  a  trust,  and  that  not 
a  slender  one,  in  the  Lord's  promise,  in  Christ, 
for  personal  salvation ;  and  this  trust  is  precisely 
the  assurance   asserted  as  essential  to  saving 
faith. 

It  would  greatly  conduce  to  clear  views  of 
this  subject  were  the  distinction  between  the 
assurance  oi  faith  and  the  assurance  of  sense 


Faith  and  Justification.  333 

rightly  understood  and  inculcated.  When  we 
speak  of  assurance  as  essential  to  faith,  many 
suppose  we  teach  that  none  can  be  real  Chris- 
tians who  do  not  feel  that  they  have  passed  from 
death  unto  life ;  and  have  not  unclou^ded  and 
triumphant  views  of  their  own  interest  in  Christ, 
so  as  to  say,  under  the  manifestations  of  his  love, 
"  my  beloved  is  mine,  and  I  am  his."  But  God 
forbid  that  we  should  thus  offend  against  the 
generation  of  his  children.  That  many  of  them 
want  such  an  assurance  may  not  be  questioned. 
This  however  is  the  assurance,  not  of  faith  but 
of  sense ;  and  vastly  different  they  are.  The 
object  of  the  former  is  Christ  revealed  in  the 
luord;  the  object  of  the  latter  Christ  revealed 
in  the  heai^t.  The  ground  of  the  former  is  the 
testimony  of  God  icithout  us ;  that  of  the  latter 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  icithin  us.  The  one  em- 
braces the  promise,  looking  at  nothing  but  the 
veracity  of  the  promiser ;  the  other  enjoys  the 
promise  in  the  sweetness  of  its  actual  accom- 
plishment. Faith  trusts  for  pardon  to  the  blood 
of  Christ;  sense  asserts  pardon  from  the  com- 
fortable intimations  of  it  to  the  soul.  By  faith 
we  take  the  Lord  Jesus  for  salvation ;  by  sense 
we  feel  that  we  are  saved,  from  the  Spirit's 
shining  on  his  own  gracious  work  in  our  hearts. 
These  kinds  of  assurance,  so  different  in  their 
nature,  are  very  frequently  separated.  The  as- 
.surance  of  faith  may  be,'and  often  is,  in  lively 


334  All  act  concerning 

exercise,  when  the  other  is  completely  with- 
drawn. ''  Zion  said,  My  Lord  hath  forgotten 
me ;  and  the  Spouse,  Mij  Beloved  hath  withdrawn 
himself  and  icas  goneJ^  "  He  may  be  a  forget- 
ting and  withdrawing  God  to  my  feelings,  and 
yet  to  my  faith,  7ny  God  and  my  Lord  still." 
This  case  is  accurately  described  by  the  pro- 
phet. Who  is  among  you  that  feareth  the  Loixl^ 
that  ohcyeth  the  voice  of  his  servant^  that  icalketh 
in  darkness^  and  hath  no  light?  let  him  trust  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  stay  upon  his  God. 
Here  the  believer,  one  who  fears  the  Lord,  is 
supposed  to  be  absolutely  destitute  of  sensible 
assurance,  for  he  icalks  in  dai'kness  and  has  no 
light ;  yet  he  is  required  to  exercise  the  assu- 
rance of  faith  by  trusting  in  the  Lord,  and  stay- 
ing upon  HIS  God. 

Seeing,  therefore,  that  the  scriptures  teach 
that  there  is  in  saving  faith  a  special  appropria- 
tion of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  the  soul,  with  a 
persuasion  of  its  own  partic  ular  salvation  through 
him;  and  that  this  doctrine  is  in  nowise  con- 
trary, but  most  conformable  to  the  experience  of 
the  saints;  the  synod  do  reject,  and  solemnly 
testify  against  the  prevailing  errors,  that  justi- 
fying faith  does  not  necessarily  contain  an  ap- 
propriation of  Christ  to  ourselves,  as  our  own 
Savior  in  particular ;  nor  any  assurance  that  we 
in  particular  shall  be  saved ;  but  merely  a  be- 
lief and  persuasion  of  God's  mercy  in  Christ, 


Faith  and  Justification.  335 

and  of  his  ability  and  willingness  to  save  those 
who  come  unto  God  through  him.  And  the  sy- 
nod do  warn  their  people  against  the  principles 
herein  condemned  as  contrary  to  the  faith  of 
God's  elect ;  as  tending  to  encourage  in  sinners 
a  lying  liope,  founded  on  a  general  assent  to 
the  truth  of  the  gospel ;  and  to  mar  instead  of 
promoting  the  growth  and  consolation  of  be- 
lievers. 

II.    OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

Justification,  being  the  reverse  of  condemna- 
tion, expresses  a  change,  not  of  personal  quali- 
ties, but  of  relative  state.  For,  as  condemna- 
tion does  not  make  the  subjects  thereof  wicked, 
so  justification  does  not  make  them  holy.  But 
as  the  former  is  a  sentence  according  to  law,  de- 
claring a  person  unrighteous  and  adjudging  him 
to  punishment,  so  the  latter  is  a  sentence  accord- 
ing to  law,  acquitting  him  from  guilt  and  de- 
claring him  righteous.  In  justifying  sinners,  the 
Most  High  God,  as  an  upright  moral  Governor, 
passes  a  sentence,  wherein  he  imrdoneth  all  their 
sins,  and  accepteth  them  as  righteous  in  his  sight. 
For  he  forgivcth  all  their  iniquities,  and  7nakes 
them  accepted  in  the  Bcloocd. 

This  justification  is  an  act,  and  is  therefore 
completed  at  once.  It  is  necessarily  an  act,  be- 
cause it  is  a  legal  sentence;  and  an  act  cannot 


336  An  act  concernins: 


'a 


be  progressive :  this  is  the  property  of  a  icork. 

The  origin  of  justification  is  the  sovereign 
grace  of  God — We  are  justijied  freely  hy  his 
grace. 

The  meritorious  cause  of  it ;  that  which  ren- 
ders it  meet  and  right  for  God  to  al3solve  the 
sinner  from  the  curse  and  receive  him  into  favor, 
and  on  account  of  which  he  is  just  in  justify- 
ing, is  the  righteousness  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  con- 
sisting of  his  whole  obedience  to  the  law,  both 
in  its  precept  and  penalty.  We  have  redemiMon 
through  his  blood,  and  by  his  obedience  manij  are 
made  righteous. 

This  righteousness  is  conveyed  to  us  by  impu- 
tation ;  that  is,  is  placed  to  our  account  as  really 
and  effectively  as  if  it  had  been  accomplished  in 
our  own  persons.  He  was  7nade  under  the  law ; 
so  under  it  as  to  become  sin  for  its,  though  he 
kneiD  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  in  him ;  i.  e.  as  our  sin,  being 
charged  on  him,  is  sustained  in  law,  as  a  suffi- 
cient reason  for  exacting  from  him,  in  our  name, 
full  compliance  with  all  the  demands  of  justice ; 
so  that  compliance,  which  is  his  righteousness, 
being  imputed  unto  us,  is  sustained  in  law  as  a 
sufficient  reason  for  acquitting  us,  in  his  name, 
from  guilt,  and  conferring  on  us  a  title  to  ever- 
lasting life.  The  Lord  hath  laid  wpon  him  the 
iniquity  of  us  all ;  and,  therefore,  by  his  stripes 
ice  are  healed. 


Faitfi  and  Justijicaiion.  337 

With  the  imputation  of  the  Snretys  right- 
eousness on  the  part  of  God  the  Judge,  there  is 
necessarily  connected  the  cordial  reception  of  it 
on  our  part.  This  is  done  by  faith,  the  faith  of 
the  operation  of  God.  It  is  in  believing  on  the 
Lord  Jesus,  or,  as  has  already  been  explained, 
accepting  him  for  righteousness ;  on  the  divine 
warrant,  that  our  persons  are  released  from  the 
curse,  and  we  are  personallij  instated  in  the 
right  to  the  inheritance.  In  this  sense,  and  in 
this  only,  does  faith  justify ;  not  as  being,  in  any 
possible  form  or  degree,  our  justifying  righteous- 
ness ;  but  simply  as  it  embraces  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  Surety  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  our 
own.  So  speaks  the  scripture :  We  are  justified 
hy  faith ;  only  as  it  is  faith  in  his  blood. 

Hence  it  is  apparent  that  personal  justification 
takes  place  at  the  moment  of  believing,  and  not 
before.  But  as  this  part  of  the  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification has  been  recently  and  boldly  denied 
within  the  bounds  of  the  synod,  they  judge  it 
their  duty  briefly  to  confirm  it,  and  to  bear  their 
testimony  against  the  contrary  error. 

1.  It  is  not  righteousness  as  imputed  merely 
that  justifies,  but  as  received  also.  On  this  the 
scriptures  lay  particular  stress.  As  many  as  re- 
ceived  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the 
fions  of  God;  which  receiving  is  immediately 
explained  by  believmg  on  his  name.  No  right- 
eousness can  justify  me  at  the  bar  of  ju{?tice. 

Vol  IU  43 


338  An  act  concerning 


o 


unless  I  am  warranted  in  law  to  plead  it  as  my 
own.  It  is  palpably  absurd  to  plead  a  righteous- 
ness which  I  reject.  The  very  plea  supposes 
that  the  righteousness  is  mine,  and  that  I  trust 
in  it.  Now,  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not 
mine  in  possession  till  I  accept  it  as  the  Father's 
gift,  which  I  do  in  believing.  Before  believing, 
therefore,  I  have  no  righteousness  to  oppose  to 
the  claims  of  the  law,  and  consequently  neither 
am  nor  can  be  justified.  It  will  not  be  ques- 
tioned that  the  Lord  never  imputes  righteous- 
ness to  those  who  never  believe,  and  that  he 
alw^ays  bestows  the  grace  of  faith  on  those  to 
whom  he  imputes  righteousness.  And  this  de- 
monstrates that  there  subsists  such  a  connection 
between  imputation  on  his  part  and  faith  on 
ours,  that  without  the  latter  the  former  could 
not  produce  its  effect.  But  that  effect  is  our 
justification ;  therefore  justification  cannot  take 
place  before  believing. 

2.  The  law  applies  its  curse  to  the  person  of 
every  sinner  in  particular,  and  its  terror  to  the 
conscience  of  every  convinced  sinner  in  par- 
ticular. 

That  the  gospel,  as  the  ministration  of 
righteousness,  may  be  directly  opposed  to  the 
law  as  the  ministration  of  condemnation,  and 
that  its  effect  may  completely  destroy  the  effect 
of  the  law's  curse,  it  is  necessary  that  there  be 
a  particular  application  of  righteousness  to  the 


^  Faith  and  Justificatloh.  339 

person  of  the  sinner,  and  that  the  peace-speak- 
ing blood  of  Jesus  be  particularly  applied  to  his 
conscience.  Both  are  asserted  in  the  scripture. 
Believers  are  elect  according  to  the  foreknowleilge 
of  God  the  Father,  through  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  purges  their  con- 
science from  DEAD  WORKS.  But  it  has  been  shown 
under  the  preceding  head,  that  it  is  faith  which 
appropriates  the  Lord  Christ  in  his  saving  bene- 
fits. And  as  there  is  no  justification  before  he 
be  thus  appropriated,  there  can  be  none  before 
believing. 

3.  The  scriptures  divide  the  hearers  of  the 
gospel  into  believers  and  unbelievers,  and  pro- 
nounce upon  them  sentences  according  to  their 
respective  characters.  He  that  helieveth  is  not 
condemned ;  he  is  justified  from  all  things ;  he 
hath  everlasting  life.  While  he  that  helieveth  7iot 
is  condemned  aheadij,  and  the  wrath  of  God, 
abideth  on  him.  Till  the  sinner  believe  he  is  an 
unbeliever;  and  as  long  as  he  continues  so  he  is 
in  a  state  of  condemnation ;  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth  on  him.  Justification,  therefore,  before 
believing,  is  impossible ;  it  exhibits  a  monster 
which  the  Bible  cannot  know,  a  justified  unbe- 
liever. It  includes  the  revolting  absurdity  of  a 
man's  being,  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the  same 
respects,  both  acquitted  and  condemned,  both  in 
a  state  of  favor  and  in  a  state  of  wrath,  at  once 
a  partaker  of  Christ  and  an  heir  of  hell. 


c>40  All  act  concerninii 

However  plain  and  peremptory  the  scriptural 
doctrine  on  this  point,  there  are  not  wanting 
some  to  corrupt  and  oppose  it  by  teaching,  not 
only  that  justification  precedes  believing,  but 
that  the  elect  were  justified  from  eternity. 

If  nothing  more  were  meant  than  that  the 
Lord,  from  eternity,  jmrjjosed  to  justify  his  elect 
through  the  righteousness  of  their  Head,  Jesus 
Christ,  and  Ami  this  gracious  purpose  or  decree 
infallibly  secures  their  justification  in  time,  it 
would  be  a  glorious  truth.  Though  to  call  this 
jusf/ijication,  when  it  is  in  fact  the  same  with  elec- 
tion, would  be  a  strange  abuse  of  terms,  and 
would  engender  an  idle  and  unedifying  strife  of 
words.  But  it  is  contended  that  justification, 
strictly  and  properly  speaking,  is  eternal :  that 
Jehovah,  having  from  eternity  accepted  the  sure- 
tyship of  the  Son,  accepted,  and  therefore  justi- 
fied, the  elect  in  him  :  that  as  his  will  to  elect  is 
election,  so  his  will  to  justify  is  justification : 
that  this  being  eternally  an  immanent  act  of  the 
Divine  Mind,  is  the  true  justification :  that  the 
transient  act,  which  passes  in  time  on  the  person 
of  a  sinner,  and  which  we  style  justification,  is 
only  an  intimation  to  his  conscience  of  what  was 
done  in  eternity :  and  that  the  proper  business 
of  faith  is  not  to  justify,  but  to  impart  to  the 
believer  a  clear  manifestation  and  a  comfortable 
sense  of  his  eternal  justification 


Faith  and  Justification.  341 

How  contrary  all  this  is  to  the  nature  of 
things,  to  the  testimony  of  God's  word,  and  to 
the  experience  of  his  people,  may  be  easily  de- 
monstrated. 

1.  Justification,  being  the  sentence  of  God  the 
Judge,  acquitting  the  sinner  from  guilt  and  pro- 
nouncing him  righteous  according  to  the  tenor  of 
the  moral  law,  necessarily  implies  both  the  ex- 
istence of  the  law  and  the  breach  of  it  by  the 
person  justified ;  neither  of  which  can  consist 
with  the  doctrine  of  eternal  justification. 

2.  If,  as  is  alledged,  the  will  to  justify  is  jus- 
tification, as  the  will  to  elect  is  election,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  the  will  to  create  is  creation,  the  will 
to  sanctify  sanctification,  the  will  to  save  salva- 
tion ;  so  that  men  were  created,  sanctified,  saved 
from  eternity. 

That  sanctification  is  a  change  of  personal 
qualities,  and  justification  of  legal  relations,  will 
neither  alter  the  question  nor  remove  the  diffi- 
culty ;  for  justification  as  necessarily  supposes 
the  existence  of  the  relations  affected  by  it,  as 
sanctification  does  the  existence  of  the  person 
sanctified.  Both  these  blessings  impart  a  real 
and  glorious  change;  only  the  subject  of  the 
latter  is  a  sinner's  person,  and  of  the  former  his 
state.  Beside,  condemnation  affects  only  legal 
relations;  and  if  the  will  to  justify  is  justifica- 
tion, the  will  to  condemn  must  be  condemnation ; 
so  that  mankind  were  condemned  from  eternity ; 


342  An  act  concernins' 


'O 


that  is,  eternally  before  the  covenant  for  the 
breach  of  which  they  were  condemned  had  any 
being :  or  else  the  covenant  with  Adam  was  as 
eternal  as  the  covenant  with  Christ ;  i.  e.  was 
made  with  Adam  an  eternity  before  he  was 
created. 

3.  If  the  elect  were  justified  from  eternity  in 
virtue  of  their  being  from  eternity  in  Christ,  by 
covenant  representation,  it  must  follow,  either 
that  they  never  were  in  Adam  as  a  head  of 
condemnation,  or  else  that  they  were  condemned 
in  Adam  after  their  justification  in  Christ;  be- 
cause the  latter  was  from  eternity  and  the 
former  only  in  time ;  for  it  is  evident  that  they 
could  not  be  condemned  in  Adam  before  he  fell 
tinder  condemnation  himself.  But  both  these 
propositions  ar§  most  repugnant  to  every  princi- 
ple and  declaration  of  the  scripture. 

4.  The  elect  could  not  be  eternally  justified  in 
Christ  their  Surety,  because  the  Surety  himself 
was  not  thus  justified.  As  the  God-man,  he 
was  made  under  the  laAv,  both  in  its  precept  and 
penalty,  nor  was  he  discharged  till  he  had  satis- 
fied both  to  the  uttermost.  God  was  first  tnani- 
fested  in  the  flesh,  then  justified  in  the  Spirit. 

This  is  usually  called  the  virtual  justification  of 
the  elect ;  by  which  must  be  understood,  that  in 
the  obedience  and  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus  a 
foundation  was  laid  for  their  pardon  and  accept- 
ance, so  that  God  might  be  just  in  justifying 


Faith  and  Justification.  343 

them,  and  the  promise  thereof  made  h'reversibly 
sure  to  them  as  the  seed.  But  that  this  was  not 
their  own  proper  justification  is  clear  from  the 
example  of  those,  who,  by  faith  in  the  Savior  to 
come,  were  justified  before  his  appearing  to  put 
away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself. 

5.  If  the  elect  were  justified  from  eternity, 
and  of  course  came  justified  into  the  world,  it  is 
undeniable  that  every  elect  person  is  regenerated 
and  sanctified  from  the  womb ;  or  else  that  jus- 
tification and  sanctification  may  be,  and  often 
are,  separated :  so  that  a  person  in  favor  with 
God,  and  an  heir  of  life,  may  notwithstanding  be, 
for  years  and  scores  of  years,  under  the  domi- 
nion and  wallowing  in  the  filth  of  sin.  The 
former  is  contrary  to  notorious  fact,  and  the  lat- 
ter, exploding  satisfaction  as  the  necessary  con- 
comitant and  test  of  justification,  destroys  our 
Lord's  rule,  that  the  tree  is  knoicn  hy  its  fruit. 

6.  The  notion  of  eternal  justification  over- 
throws the  whole  doctrine  of  the  scripture  con- 
cerning the  office  of  the  grace  of  faith.  This  is, 
pre-eminently,  to  receive  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord 
as  Jehovah  our  righteousness ;  for  he  is  made  of 
God  unto  us,  righteousness ;  and  loith  the  heart 
man  believeth  unto  righteousness.  But  if  the  use 
of  faith  be  merely  to  manifest  our  eternal  justi- 
fication, it  can  in  no  sense  be  said  to  receive 
(Jhrist  for  righteousness,  which  implies  that  pre- 
viously the  person  exercising  it  had  none.     In 


344  An  act  concerning 

addition  to  which  it  is  obvious,  according  to  this 
scheme, 

(1.)  That  faith  can  no  otherwise  justify  than 
works ;  because  holiness,  being  the  effect  of 
cleansing  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  manifests  our 
justification;  yet  the  scriptures  attribute  justifi- 
cation to  faith,  and  positively  deny  it  to  works. 

(2.)  That  no  person  can  be  a  believer  who 
has  not  a  comfortable  sense  of  his  justification, 
for  faith  manifests  it ;  and  he  loses  his  faith  as 
often  as  he  loses  the  manifestation  of  his  justifi- 
cation ;  so  that  there  are  either  no  believers  in 
the  world,  or  else  men  are  believers  or  unbe- 
lievers, as  their  comfortable  sense  of  their  justi- 
fication comes  and  goes. 

(3.)  That  no  sinner  can  be  called  by  the 
ministry  of  the  word  to  believe,  or  be  condemned 
for  unbelief.  Not  to  believe ;  because  the  use  of 
faith  being  to  manifest  justification,  the  call  if 
general  must  be  addressed  to  many  who  never 
were  and  never  will  be  justified,  and  therefore 
have  no  justification  to  be  manifested;  and  if 
restricted,  must  be  grounded  on  election ;  the 
objects  whereof  no  man  knows,  or  can  know. 
Nor  could  any  be  condemned  for  unbelief;  for 
faith,  not  being  a  receiving  of  Christ  for  justifi- 
cation, but  only  manifesting  our  eternal  justifi- 
cation, embraces  no  offer ;  and  therefore  unbe- 
lief, which  is  the  reverse  of  faith,  rejects  none : 
?aid  if  sinners  be  condemned  for  their  unbelief, 


lAiitli'  and  Justiftcatiou.  345 

they  will  be  condemned  for  a  non-manifestation 
of  what  never  existed. 

7.  The  people  of  God,  when  enabled  at  first 
to  believe,  never  do  it  as  already  justified ;  but 
feeling  themselves  accurst  and  perishing  sinners, 
shut  up  under  tlie  most  righteous  condemnation 
of  the  law,  flee  to  the  Lord  Jesus  that  they  vna]) 
be  pardoned,  and  7nay  he  saved  from  the  wrath 
to  come.  These  views  are  absolutely  incon- 
sistent with  the  idea  and  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
justification.  To  say  that  they  are  erroneous, 
seeing  the  elect  sinner  was  eternally  justified, 
though  he  does  not  know  it,  is,  on  the  matter,  to 
say  that  the  Holy  Ghost  fills  his  people  with 
groundless  terrors,  and  leads  them  to  lying  exer- 
cises ;  fur  it  is  he  who  convinces  them  of  sin  by 
applying  to  their  consciences  both  the  precept  and 
the  curse  of  the  law.  Nor  will  it  be  any  relief 
to  plead,  that  the  elect  considered  as  in  Christ 
are  justified,  but  considered  in  Adam  are  chil- 
dren of  wrath;  for  this  not  only  silences  the 
challenge  of  the  apostle.  Who  shall  lay  any  thing 
to  the  charge  of  God's  electa  but  supposes  them 
to  remain  under  the  very  condemnation  from 
which  justification  in  Christ  was  intended  to 
deliver  them.  And  as,  on  this  plan,  there  is  no 
inconsistency  now  between  their  being  justified 
in  Christ,  and  at  the  same  time  condemned  in 
Adam,  there  can  be  none  at  any  future  period  : 
so  that  the  elect  may  continue  to  all  eternity  hi 

Yoi:.  ITT,  4-'l 


346  An  act  concerning^  <&c. 

the  heavens,  in  the  presence  and  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  God — children  of  wrath  ! 

From  this  pernicious  tenet,  as  from  a  root  of 
bitterness  and  poison,  spring  many  noxious  er- 
rors, which  at  various  times  have  infected  the 
church  of  Christ,  and  which  a  regard  to  her  spi- 
ritual health  has  compelled  the  synod,  however 
reluctant  in  severity,  to  aim  at  extirpating  from 
their  hounds.  Hence  the  infatuated  notions  that 
Christ  is  offered  in  the  gospel  to  the  elect  only — 
that  ministers  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  repro- 
bate— that  the  immediate  duty  of  the  hearer  of 
the  gospel  is  to  believe,  first  of  all,  his  personal 
election  to  eternal  life — that  one  may  be  for  a 
series  of  years  in  a  gracious  state  without  know- 
ing it,  or  bringing  forth  the  fruits  of  grace,  and 
yet  ought  not  to  question  it,  with  other  of  a  like 
nature  and  tendency ;  all  of  which  do  necessa- 
rily arise  out  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  justi- 
fication. 

The  synod  do  therefore  bear  this  their  expli- 
cit and  public  testimony  against  it ;  and  do  so- 
lemnly warn  and  enjoin  both  ministers  and  peo- 
ple under  their  care,  as  they  regard  the  glory  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  welfare  of  their  own 
souls,  to  discountenance  it  and  every  one,  who, 
in  any  manner,  inculcates  it,  as  subverting  the 
very  foundations  of  the  gospel,  leading  sinners 
to  a  false  and  rumous  confidence,  and  minister- 
ing powerful  incentives  to  all  ungodliness. 


A  CONTRAST 

BETWEEK   THE 

DEATH  OF  A  DEIST  AND  THE  DEATH  OF  A    CHRISTIAN  : 

BEIKG 

A  SUCCINCT  ACCOUNT  OF  THAT  CELEBRATED  INFIDEL, 

DAVID    HUME,    ESQ. 

AKD  OF  THAT 

EXCELLENT  MINISTER  OF  THE  GOSPEL, 
SAMUEL   F  I  N  L  E  Y,    D.  D., 

IN  THEIR  LAST  MOMENTS. 


A   CONTRAST,    &< 


Letter  from  Adam  Smithy  LL.  2>.,  to  William 
Strahan,  Esq.,  givuig  some  account  of  Mr. 
Hume,  during  his  last  sickness. 

Kirkaldy,  Fife  Shire,  Nov.  9,  1776. 

Dear  Sir, 
It  is  with  a  real,  though  a  very  melancholy 
pleasure,  that  I  sit  down  to  give  you  some  ac- 
count of  the  behavior  of  our  late  excellent  friend, 
Mr.  Hume,  during  his  last  illness.  Though,  in 
his  own  judgment,  his  disease  was  mortal  and 
incurable,  yet  he  allowed  himself  to  be  pre- 
vailed upon,  by  the  entreaty  of  his  friends,  to  try 
what  might  be  the  effects  of  a  long  journey.  A 
few  days  before  he  set  out,  he  wrote  that  ac- 
count of  his  own  life,  which,  together  with  his 
other  papers,  he  left  to  your  care.  My  account, 
therefore,  .shall  begin  where  his  ends. 


350  Death  of  David  Hume,  Esq. 

He  set  out  for  London  towards  the  end  of 
April,  and  at  Morpeth  met  with  Mr.  John  Home 
and  myself,  who  had  both  come  down  from  Lon- 
don on  purpose  to  see  him,  expecting  to  have 
found  him  at  Edinburgh.  Mr.  Home  returned 
with  him,  and  attended  him  during  the  whole  of 
his  stay  in  England,  with  that  care  and  atten- 
tion which  might  be  expected  from  a  temper  so 
perfectly  friendly  and  affectionate.  As  I  had 
written  to  my  mother  that  she  might  expect  me 
in  Scotland,  I  was  under  the  necessity  of  continu- 
ing my  journey.  His  disease  seemed  to  yield  to 
exercise  and  change  of  air ;  and  when  he  arrived 
in  London,  he  was  apparently  in  much  better 
health  than  when  he  left  Edinburgh.  He  was 
advised  to  go  to  Bath  to  drink  the  waters,  which 
appeared  for  some  time  to  have  so  good  an  effect 
upon  him,  that  even  he  himself  began  to  enter- 
tain, what  he  Avas  not  apt  to  do,  a  better  opinion 
of  his  own  health.  His  symptoms,  however, 
soon  returned  with  their  usual  violence;  and 
from  that  moment  he  gave  up  all  thoughts  of 
recovery,  but  submitted  with  the  utmost  cheer- 
fulness, and  the  most  perfect  complacency  and 
resignation.  Upon  his  return  to  Edinburgh, 
though  he  found  himself  much  weaker,  yet  his 
cheerfulness  never  abated,  and  he  continued  to 
divert  himself,  as  usual,  with  correcting  his  own 
works  for  a  new  edition,  with  reading  books  of 
amusement,  with  the  conversation  of  his  friends: 


Death  of  David  Hnnie,  Esq.  351 

and,  sometimes  in  the  evening,  with  a  party  at 
his  favorite  game  of  whist.  His  cheerfuhiess 
was  so  great,  and  his  conversation  and  amuse- 
ments run  so  much  in  their  usual  strain,  that, 
notwithstanding  all  bad  symptoms,  many  people 
could  not  believe  he  Avas  dying.  '•  I  shall  tell 
your  friend,  Colonel  Edmonstone,"'  said  Doctor 
Dmidas  to  him  one  day,  "  that  I  left  you  much 
better,  and  in  a  fair  way  of  recovery."  "Doc- 
tor," said  he,  '-as I  believe  you  would  not  choose 
to  tell  any  thing  but  the  truth,  you  had  better 
tell  him  that  I  am  dying  as  fast  as  my  enemies, 
if  I  have  any,  could  wish,  and  as  easily  and 
cheerfully  as  my  best  friends  could  desire." 

Colonel  Edmonstone  soon  after  came  to  see 
him,  and  take  leave  of  him ;  and  on  his  way 
home,  he  could  not  forbear  writing  him  a  letter, 
bidding  him  once  more  an  eternal  adieu,  and 
applying  to  him,  as  to  a  dying  man,  the  beautiful 
French  verses,  in  which  the  Abbe  Cliaulieu,  in 
expectation  of  his  own  death,  laments  his  ap- 
proaching separatien  from  his  friend,  the  Mar- 
quis De  La  Fare. 

Mr.  Hume's  magnanimity  and  firmness  were 
such,  that  his  most  affectionate  friends  knew 
that  they  hasarded  nothing  in  talking  or  writing 
to  him  as  to  a  dying  man,  and  that  so  far  from 
being  hurt  by  this  frankness,  he  was  rather 
pleased  and  flattered  by  it.  I  happened  to  come 
into  his  room  while  he  was  readina:  this  letter. 


352  Death  of  David  Himie^  Esq, 

which  he  had  just  received,  and  which  he  im- 
mediately showed  me.  I  told  him,  that  though 
I  was  sensible  how  very  much  he  was  weak- 
ened, and  that  appearances  were  in  many  re- 
spects very  had,  yet  his  cheerfulness  was  still 
so  great,  the  spirit  of  life  seemed  to  be  still  so 
very  strong  in  him,  that  1  could  not  help  enter- 
taining some  faint  hopes.  He  answered,  "  Your 
hopes  are  groundless.  An  habitual  diarrhea  of 
more  than  a  year's  standing,  would  be  a  very 
bad  disease  at  any  age :  at  my  age  it  is  a  mortal 
one.  When  I  lie  down  in  the  evening,  I  feel 
myself  weaker  than  when  I  rose  in  the  morn- 
ing ;  and  when  I  rise  in  the  morning,  I  feel  my- 
self weaker  than  when  I  lay  down  in  the  eve- 
ning. I  am  sensible,  besides,  that  some  of  my 
vital  parts  are  affected,  so  that  I  must  soon  die." 
''  Well,"  said  I,  "  if  it  must  be  so,  you  have  at 
least  the  satisfaction  of  leaving  all  your  friends, 
your  brother's  family  in  particular,  in  great 
prosperity."  He  said  that  he  felt  that  satisfac- 
tion so  sensibly,  that  when  he  was  reading  a  few 
days  before,  Lucian's  Dialogues  of  the  Dead, 
among  all  the  excuses  which  are  alledged  to  Cha- 
ron, for  not  entering  readily  into  his  boat,  he 
could  not  find  one  that  fitted  him ;  he  had  no 
house  to  finish,  he  had  no  daughter  to  provide 
for,  he  had  no  enemies  upon  whom  he  wished  to 
revenge  himself.  "I  could  not  well  imagine,' 
said  he.  ''what  excuse  I  could  make  to  Charon. 


JJmtk  of  David  HiDiie^  Jblaq.  35c) 

ill  order  to  obtain  a  little  delay.  I  have  done 
every  thing  of  consequence  which  I  ever  meant 
to  do;  and  I  could  at  no  time  expect  to  leave 
my  relations  and  friends  in  a  better  situation 
than  that  in  which  I  am  now  likely  to  leave 
them ;  I,  therefore,  have  all  reason  to  die  con- 
tented." He  then  diverted  himself  with  invent- 
ing several  jocular  excuses  which  he  supposed 
lie  might  make  to  Charon,  and  with  imagining 
the  very  surly  answers  which  it  might  suit  the 
character  of  Charon  to  return  to  them.  "  Upon 
further  consideration,"  said  he,  "  I  thought  I 
might  say  to  him,  '  Good  Charon,  I  have  been 
correcting  my  works  for  a  new  edition.  Allow 
me  a  little  time  that  I  may  see  how  the  public 
receives  the  alterations.'  But  Charon  would 
answer,  '  "W  hen  you  have  seen  the  effect  of  these, 
you  will  be  for  making  other  alterations.  There 
will  be  no  end  of  such  excuses ;  so,  honest  friend, 
please  step  into  the  boat.'  But  I  might  still 
urge,  '  Have  a  little  patience,  good  Charon ;  I 
have  been  endeavoring  to  open  the  eyes  of  the 
public.  If  I  live  a  few  years  longer,  I  may  have 
the  satisfaction  of  seeing  the  downfall  of  some 
of  the  prevailing  systems  of  superstition.'  But 
Charon  would  then  lose  all  temper  and  decency. 
'■  You  loitering  rogue,  that  will  not  happen  these 
many  hundred  years.  Do  you  fancy  I  will  grant 
yon  a  lease  for  so  long  a  term  ?  Get  into  the 
boat  this  instant,  you  lazy,  loitering  rogue/  " 
Vol.  HT.  4^ 


354  Death  of  David  Hame^  Esq. 

But,  though  Mr.  Hume  always  talked  of  his 
approachhig  dissolution  with  great  cheerfulness. 
he  never  affected  to  make  any  parade  of  his 
magnanimity.  He  never  mentioned  the  subject 
but  when  the  conversation  naturally  led  to  it, 
and  dwelt  no  longer  upon  it  than  the  conversa- 
tion happened  to  require :  it  was  a  subject,  in- 
deed, which  occurred  pretty  frequently,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  inquiries  which  his  friends,  who 
came  to  see  him,  naturally  made  concerning  the 
state  of  his  health.  The  conversation  which  I 
mentioned  above,  and  which  passed  on  Thurs- 
day, the  8th  of  August,  w^as  the  last,  except 
one,  that  I  ever  had  with  him.  He  had  now 
become  so  very  weak,  that  the  company  of  his 
most  intimate  friends  fatigued  him ;  for  his  cheer- 
fulness w^as  still  so  great,  his  complaisance,  and 
social  disposition  were  still  so  entire,  that  when 
any  friend  was  with  him,  he  could  not  help  talk- 
ing more,  and  with  greater  exertion,  than  suited 
the  weakness  of  his  body.  At  his  own  desire, 
therefore,  I  agreed  to  leave  Edinburgh,  wiiere  I 
was  staying  partly  upon  his  account,  and  re- 
turned to  my  mother's  house  here,  at  Kirkaldy. 
upon  condition  that  he  would  send  for  me  w^hen- 
ever  he  wished  to  see  me ;  the  physician  who 
saw  him  most  frequently.  Dr.  Black,  undertaking 
in  the  mean  time,  to  write  me  occasionally  an 
account  of  the  state  of  his  health.     On  the  22d 


Death  of  David  Hume,  Es<].  355 

of  August,  the  Doctor  wrote  me  the  following 
letter  : 

"  Since  my  last,  Mr.  Hume  has  passed  his  time 
pretty  easily,  but  is  much  weaker.  He  sits  up, 
goes  down  stairs  once  a  day,  and  amuses  himself 
with  reading,  but  seldom  sees  any  body.  He 
linds  that  even  the  conversation  of  his  most  in- 
timate friends  fatigues  and  oppresses  him ;  and 
it  is  happy  that  he  does  not  need  it,  for  he  is 
quite  free  from  anxiety,  impatience,  or  low  spi- 
rits ;  and  passes  his  time  very  well  with  the  as- 
sistance of  amusing  books." 

I  received,  the  day  after,  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Hume,  myself,  of  which  the  following  is  an  ex- 
tract : 

Edinburgh,  23  August,  1776. 

My  dearest  Friend, 
I  am  obliged  to  make  use  of  my  nephew's 

hand  in  writing  to  you,  as  I  do  not  rise  to-dav. 

*  *         *         *  *  *         # 

******  :J^ 

I  go  very  fast  to  decline,  and  last  night  had  a 
small  fever,  which  I  hoped  might  put  a  quicker 
period  to  this  tedious  illness,  but  unluckily  it 
has,  in  a  great  measure,  gone  off,  I  cannot  sub- 
mit to  your  coming  over  here  on  my  account,  as 
it  is  possible  for  me  to  see  you  so  small  a  part  of 
the  day ;  but  Doctor  Black  can  better  inform 
you  concerning  the  degree  of  strength  which 


356  Death  of  JDavid  Hume,  Esq. 

may    from    time    to    time    remain    with    me 
Adieu,  &c." 


Three  days  after,  I  received  the  following 
letter  from  Dr.  Black  : 

Edinburgh,  Monday,  Aug.  26,  1776. 

Dear  Sir, 
Yesterday,  about  four  o'clock,  afternoon,  Mr. 
Hume  expired.  The  near  approach  of  his  death 
became  evident  in  the  night  between  Thursday 
and  Friday,  when  his  disease  became  excessive, 
and  soon  weakened  him  so  much,  that  he  could 
no  longer  rise  out  of  his  bed.  He  continued  to 
the  last  perfectly  sensible,  and  free  from  much 
pain  or  feelings  of  distress.  He  never  dropped 
the  smallest  expression  of  impatience ;  but  when 
he  had  occasion  to  speak  to  the  people  about  him, 
always  did  it  with  affection  and  tenderness.  I 
thought  it  improper  to  write  to  bring  you  over, 
especially  as  I  heard  that  he  dictated  a  letter  to 
you,  desiring  you  not  to  come.  When  he  be- 
came very  weak  it  cost  him  an  effort  to  speak . 
and  lie  died  in  such  a  happy  composure  of  mind, 
that  nothing  could  exceed  it. 

Thus  died  our  most  excellent  and  never  to  be 
forgotten  friend ;  concerning  whose  philosophical 
opinions  men  will  no  doubt  judge  variously, 
every  one  approving  or  condemning  them,  ac- 


Death  of  David  Hume,  Esq.  357 

<5ording  as  they  happen  to  coincide  or  disagree 
with  his  own  ;  but  concerning  whose  character 
and  conduct  there  can  scarce  be  a  difference  of 
opinion.  His  temper,  indeed,  seemed  to  be  more 
happily  balanced,  if  I  may  be  allowed  such  an 
expression,  than  that  perhaps  of  any  other  man 
I  have  ever  known.  Even  in  the  lowest  state 
of  his  fortune,  his  great  and  necessary  frugality 
never  hindered  him  from  exercising,  upon  proper 
occasions,  acts  both,  of  charity  and  generosity. 
It  was  a  frugality  founded  not  upon  avarice,  but 
upon  the  love  of  independency.  The  extreme 
gentleness  of  his  nature  never  weakened  either 
the  firmness  of  his  mind,  or  the  steadiness  of  his 
resolutions.  His  constant  pleasantry  was  the 
genuine  effusion  of  good  nature  and  good  hu- 
mour, tempered  with  delicacy  and  modesty,  and 
without  even  the  slightest  tincture  of  malignity, 
so  frequently  the  disagreeable  source  of  what  is 
called  wit  in  other  men.  It  never  was  the  mean- 
ing of  his  raillery  to  mortify ;  and,  therefore,  far 
from  offending,  it  seldom  failed  to  please  and  de- 
light, even  those  who  were  the  objects  of  it. 
To  his  friends,  who  were  frequently  the  objects 
of  it,  there  was  not  perhaps  any  one  of  all  his 
great  and  amiable  qualities,  which  contributed 
more  to  endear  his  conversation.  And  that 
gayety  of  temper,  so  agreeable  in  society,  but 
which  is  often  accompanied  with  frivolous  and 
superficial  qualities,  was,  in  him.  certainly  at- 


SdS  Death  of  David  Hume,  Esq. 

tended   with  the  most   severe  application,  the 
most  extensive  learning,  the  greatest  depth  of 
thought,  and  a  capacity  in  every    respect  the 
most  comprehensive.     Upon  the  whole,  I  have 
always  considered  him,  both  in  his  lifetime  and 
since  his  death,  as  approaching  as  nearly  to  the 
idea  of  a  perfectly  wise  and  virtuous  man,  as 
perhaps  the  nature  of  human  frailty  will  permit. 
I  ever  am. 
Dear  Sir, 

Most  affectionately  yours, 
Adam  Smith. 


Death  of  ISaniml  F'uiley^  D.  D.         359 


ISome  of  the,  last  choice  icords  of  Doctor  Samuel 
FiNLEY,  President  of  the  college  of  New  Jersey. 

Friday,  July  11,  1776.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Richard 
Treat  came  to  visit  the  Doctor,  who  desired  that 
he  would  pray  by  him.  Being  asked  what  he 
vshould  pray  for,  he  answered,  "Beseech  God 
that  he  would  be  pleased  to  let  me  feel  just  as 
I  did  at  that  time  when  I  first  closed  with  Christ, 
at  which  time  I  could  scarce  contain  myself  out 
of  heaven." 

Dr.  S.  acquainted  him  that  he  could  live  but 
a  few  days  longer ;  at  which  he  lifted  up  his 
eyes  with  much  composure,  saying,  "  Then  wel- 
come, Lord  Jesus."  He  declared  himvself  under 
the  greatest  obligations  to  the  doctor  for  his 
kind  and  diligent  attendance  during  his  illness, 
and  said,  "  I  owe  a  large  catalogue  of  debts  to 
my  friends,  which  will  never  be  charged  to  my 
account ;  God  will  discharge  them  for  me." 

July  13th,  Lord's-day,  noon.  Dr.  C.  came  to 
his  bed-side,  and  told  him  there  appeared  a  very 
visible  alteration  in  his  countenance,  by  which 
he  judged  death  was  not  far  off.  He  raised  him- 
self upon  his  pillow,  and  broke  out,  '^  Then  may 
the  Lord  bring  me  near  to  himself — I  have 
waited  with  a  Canaan  hunger  for  the  promised 
land — I  have  often  wondered  that  God  suffereii 


o60         Veath  of  iSamuel  Finley,  D.  Jj. 

me  to  live-I  have  wondered  more  that  ever  he 
called  me  to  be  a  minister  of  his  word      He  has 
often  afforded  me  much  strength,  and  though  I 
have  abused  it,  he  has  returned  in  mercy.     Oh  • 
how  sweet  are  the  promises  of  God  !     Oh  '  that 
I  could  see  him  as  I  have  seen  him  heretofore  in 
his  sanctuary!     Although  I  have  earnestly  de^ 
sired  death  as  the  hireling  pants  for  the  evening 
shade,  yet  will  I  wait  my  appointed  time.     I 
have  struggled  with  principalities  and  power, 
and  have  been  brought  almost  to  despair-^Lord 
let  it  suffice." 

He  now  closed  his  eyes,  and  fervently  prayed 
that  God  would  show  him  his  glory  before  he 
departed  hence— that  he  would  enable  him  to 
endure  patiently  to  the  end-and,  particularly 
that  he  might  be  kept  from  dishonoring  the  mi- 
nistry.    He  resumed  his  discourse,  saying    "I 
can  truly  say  that  I  have  loved  the  servic'e  of 
God— I  know  not  in  what  language  to  speak  of 
my  own  unworthiness  ;  I  have  been  undutiful  • 
I  have  honestly  endeavored  to  act  for  God,  but 
with  much  weakness  and  corruption."    Here  he 
lay  down,  and  spoke  as  follows  :  "A  Christian's 
death  is  the  best  part  of  his  existence.     The 
Lord  has  made  provision  for  the  whole  way 
provision  for  the  soul  and  for  the  body.     Oh! 
that  I  could  recollect  sabbath  blessings !     The 
Lord  has  given  me  many  souls  as  a  crown  of 
my  rejoicing.    Blessed  be  God,  eternal  rest  is  at 


Death  of  Samuel  Finley;  D.  D.         361 

hand :  eternity  is  long  enough  to  enjoy  my  God. 
This  has  animated  me  in  my  severest  studies. 
I  was  ashamed  to  take  rest  here.  Oh  !  that  I 
could  be  filled  with  the  fullness  of  God !  that 
fullness  which  fills  heaven  !" 

One  asked  him,  if  it  was  in  his  choice  either 
to  live  or  to  die,  which  he  would  prefer?  He 
replied,  "  To  die.  Though  I  cannot  but  say  I 
feel  the  same  difiiculty  with  St.  Paul.  But 
should  God  by  a  miracle  prolong  my  life,  I  will 
still  continue  to  serve  him :  his  service  has  ever 
been  sweet  to  me.  I  have  loved  it  much.  I 
have  tried  my  Master's  yoke,  and  will  never 
shrink  my  neck  from  it.  His  yoke  is  easy,  and 
his  burden  light." 

"  You  are  more  cheerful,  sir,"  said  one  of  the 
company.  "  Yes,  I  rise  or  fall  as  eternal  rest 
appears  nearer  or  further  off." 

It  being  observed  to  him,  that  he  always  used 
that  expression  '•''Dear  Lord''''  in  his  prayers;  he 
answered,  "  Oh  !  he  is  very  dear,  very  precious 
indeed !  How  pretty  for  a  minister  to  die  upon 
the  sabbath !  I  expect  to  spend  the  remaining 
part  of  this  sabbath  in  heaven." 

One  said,  "  You  will  soon  be  joined  to  a  bless- 
ed society;  you  will  for  ever  converse  with 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  with  the  spirits  of 
just  men  made  perfect,  with  old  friends,  and 
many  old-fashioned  people."     "  Yes,  sir,"  he  re- 

VoL.  III.  46 


362         D  eat  I  I  of  Samuel  Finiey,  D.  D. 

plied,  with  a  smile,  "  but  they  are  a  most  polite 
people  now." 

He  frequently  expressed  great  gratitude  to 
his  friends  around  him,  hut  very  particularly  to 
the  kind  family  he  was  in ;  and  said,  "  May  the 
Lord  repay  you  for  your  tenderness  of  me ;  may 
he  bless  you  abundantly,  not  only  with  temporal 
but  spiritual  blessings."  Addressing  himself  to 
all  that  were  present,  he  said,  "  Oh  !  that  each 
of  you  may  experience  what,  blessed  be  God,  I 
do,  when  ye  come  to  die !  May  you  have  the 
pleasure  of  reflecting  in  a  dying  hour,  that  with 
faith  and  j^f^tience,  zeal  and  sincerity^  you  have 
endeavored  to  serve  the  Lord ;  that  each  of  you 
may  be  impressed,  as  I  have  been,  with  God's 
word,  looking  upon  it  as  substantial,  and  not 
only  fearing,  but  unwilling  to  offend  against  it." 

To  a  person  about  to  return  to  Princeton,  he 
said,  "  Give  my  love  to  the  people  of  Princeton  ; 
tell  them  I  am  going  to  die,  and  that  I  am  not 
afraid  of  death."  He  would  sometimes  cry  out, 
"  The  Lord  Jesus  take  care  of  his  cause  in  the 
world." 

Monday,  14th.  Waking  this  morning,  "  Oh ! 
what  a  disappointment  have  I  met  with ;  I  ex- 
pected this  morning  to  have  been  in  heaven !" 
His  great  weakness  prevented  his  much  speak- 
ing to-day :  what  few  words  he  uttered,  breathed 
the  language  of  triumph. 


Death  of  Samuel  Finleij,  D.  D.         363 

Tuesday,  15th.  With  a  pleasmg  smile  and 
strong  voice  he  cried  out,  "  Oh  !  I  shall  triumph 
over  every  foe !  The  Lord  hath  given  me  the 
victory !  I  exult,  I  triumph.  Oh  !  that  I  could 
see  untainted  purity !  Now  I  know  that  it  is 
impossible  that  faith  should  not  triumph  over 
earth  and  hell ;  I  think  I  have  nothing  to  do  now 
but  to  die.  Perhaps  I  have  ;  Lord  show  me  my 
task." 

After  expressing  some  fears  that  he  did  not 
endeavor  to  preserve  his  remaining  life,  through 
eagerness  to  depart,  and  being  told  he  did  no- 
thing inconsistent  with  self-preservation,  he  said, 
"  Lord  Jesus,  into  thine  hands  I  commit  my  spi- 
rit. /  do  it  icith  confidence^  I  do  it  ivith  full  as- 
sw^ance.  I  know  that  thou  wilt  keep  that  which 
I  have  committed  unto  thee,  I  have  been  dream- 
ing too  fast  of  the  time  of  my  departure.  I  find 
it  does  not  come ;  but  the  Lord  is  faithful,  and 
will  not  tarry  beyond  his  appointed  time." 

When  one  who  attended  him  told  him  his  pulse 
grew  weaker,  he  expressed  with  pleasure,  that 
it  was  well.  He  often  would  put  forth  his  hand 
to  his  physicians,  and  ask  them  how  his  pulse 
beat;  and  would  rejoice  when  he  was  told  it 
was  fluttering  or  irregular. 

In  the  afternoon,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Spencer  came 
to  see  him,  and  said,  "  I  am  come,  dear  sir,  to 
hear  you  confirm  by  facts  the  gospel  you  have 
preached.     Pray  how  do  you  feel  ?"     The  doc- 


364         Death  of  Samuel  Finley,  D.  D. 

tor  replied,  "  Full  of  triumph.  I  triumph  through 
Christ.  Nothing  clips  my  wings  but  the  thoughts 
of  my  dissolution  being  prolonged.  Oh  !  that  it 
was  to-night.  My  very  soul  thirsts  for  eternal 
rest."  Mr.  Spencer  asked  him,  what  he  saw  in 
eternity  to  excite  such  vehement  desires  in  his 
soul  ?  He  replied,  "  I  see  a  God  of  love  and 
goodness — I  see  the  fullness  of  my  Mediator — I 
see  the  love  of  Jesus.  Oh  !  to  be  dissolved ;  to 
be  with  him !  I  long  to  be  clothed  with  the 
complete  righteousness  of  Christ,  not  only  im- 
puted but  inherent."  He  desired  Mr  Spencer  to 
pray  before  they  parted.  "  Pray  that  God  would 
preserve  me  from  evil — that  he  would  keep  me 
from  dishonoring  his  great  name  in  this  critical 
hour ;  and  support  me  in  my  passage  through  the 
valley  of  the  shadow  of  death.'''' 

He  spent  the  remaining  part  of  the  day  in  bid- 
ding farewell  to,  and  blessing  his  friends ;  and 
exhorting  such  of  his  children  as  were  with  him. 
He  would  frequently  cry  out,  '^  Why  move  the 
tardy  hours  so  slow  V 

July  16th,  his  speech  failed  him.  He  made 
many  efforts  to  speak,  but  seldom  so  distinct  as 
to  be  understood.  Mr.  Roberdeau  desired  him 
to  give  some  token  whereby  his  friends  might 
know  whether  he  still  continued  to  triumph. 
He  lifted  up  his  hands  and  said,  "  Yes."  This 
afternoon  he  uttered  several  sentences,  but  little 
could  be  collected  from  them. 


Death  of  Samuel  JFinley,  D.  D.         365 

Some  of  his  very  last  words  concerning  him- 
self were,  ''  After  one  or  two  more  engagements 
tlie  conflict  will  be  over."  About  nine  o'clock 
he  fell  into  a  sound  sleep,  and  appeared  much 
freer  from  pain  than  for  several  days  before. 
He  continued  to  sleep  without  moving  in  the 
least  till  one  o'clock ;  when  he  expired  without 
a  sigh  or  a  groan,  or  any  kind  of  motion,  suffi- 
cient to  alarm  his  wife,  and  those  friends  who 
were  about  his  bed.  During  his  whole  sickness, 
he  was  never  heard  to  utter  one  repining  word. 
He  was  at  times  tortured  with  tlie  most  excru- 
ciating pains;  yet  he  expressed  in  all  his  beha- 
vior an  entire  resignation  to  the  divine  will.  In 
all  his  affecting  farewells  to  his  relations  and 
friends,  he  was  never  seen  to  shed  a  tear,  or  show 
the  least  mark  of  sorrow.  He  often  checked 
his  affectionate  wife  when  she  was  weeping; 
and  he  expressed  his  unshaken  confidence  in  the 
promises  of  his  God,  whenever  he  spoke  of  his 
dear  children. 

His  truly  polite  behavior  continued  to  the  last, 
and  manifested  itself  whenever  he  called  for  a 
drop  of  drink  to  wet  his  lips.  Every  one  around 
him  was  treated  with  that  same  sweetness  and 
ease  that  were  so  peculiar  and  natural  to  him. 
In  fine,  he  was  a  most  striking  example  of  that 
faith  which  kindles  love  in  the  heart,  and  pro- 
duces the  sweet  fruits  of  meekness,  gentleness, 
patience,  and  every  Christian  grace  and  virtue." 


366       On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Finley. 


JRemarks  on  the  jorecedlng  accounts  of  the  death 
of  David  Hume,  Esq.,  and  Samuel  Finley^ 
D.D. 

The  common  sense  and  feelings  of  mankind, 
have  always  taught  them  to  consider  death  as  a 
most  awful  and  interesting  event.  If  it  were 
nothing  more  than  a  separation  from  all  that  we 
love  in  this  world;  the  dissolution  of  our  hodies; 
and  the  termination  of  our  present  mode  of  ex- 
istence ;  there  would  be  sufficient  reason  for  ap- 
proaching it  with  tender  and  solemn  reflection. 
But  when  we  add  those  anticipations  of  which 
very  few,  if  any,  can  wholly  divest  themselves ; 
that  scene  of  "  untried  being,"  which  lies  before 
us ;  and  especially  that  eternity  which  the  Chris- 
tian revelation  unfolds,  death  becomes  an  object 
of  unutterable  moment;  and  every  sober  thought 
of  it  bears  upon  the  heart  with  a  weight  of  so- 
licitude which  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  unaided 
reason  to  remove.  The  mere  'possibility  of  our 
living  hereafter,  is  enough  to  engage  the  atten- 
tion of  a  wise  man :  the  prohability  of  it  is  too 
grave  and  affecting  to  leave  an  excuse  for  indif- 
ference :  nnd  the  certainty  with  which  the  scrip- 
tures speak  of  it,  as  of  an  immortality  of  bless- 
edness or  of  wo,  allows  to  light  and  ludicrous 


On  the  dealh  of  Ilwiue  and  Fhdcy.       367 

speculations  concerning  it,  no  other  character 
than  that  of  the  insanity  of  wickedness. 

When  that  hour  draws  nigh  which  shall  close 
the  business  of  life,  and  summon  the  spirit  to  the 
bar  of  "  God  who  gave  it,"  all  the  motives  to  de- 
ception cease,  and  those  false  reasonings  which 
blind  the  judgment,  are  dissipated.  It  is  the 
hour  of  truth,  and  of  sincerity.  Such,  at  least, 
is  the  general  fact,  which  cannot  be  invalidated 
by  the  concession  that,  in  some  instances,  men 
have  been  found  to  cherish  their  infatuation,  and 
practice  their  knavery,  to  the  very  last.  Their 
number  in  places  which  enjoy  the  pure  gospel, 
the  only  ones  in  our  present  view,  is  too  small  to 
make  any  perceptible  difference  in  the  amount ; 
or  to  disparage  that  respectful  credence  with 
which  the  rustic  and  the  sage  listen  to  the  testi- 
mony of  a  dying  bed. 

By  this  testimony,  the  "  gospel  of  the  grace  of 
God,"  has  obtained,  among  every  people  and  in 
every  age,  such  strong  confirmation,  and  has  car- 
ried into  the  human  conscience,  such  irresistible 
appeals  for  its  truth,  its  power,  and  its  glorious 
excellency,  that  its  enemies  have  labored  with 
all  their  might,  to  discredit  these  triumphs. 
They  have  attacked  the  principle  upon  which 
the  testimony  of  a  dying  believer  rests.  They 
have  said  that  the  mind,  being  necessarily  en- 
feebled by  the  ravages  of  mortal  disease  upon 
the  body,  is  not  a  competent  judge  of  its  own 


368       On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Finley. 

operations — that  the  looks,  the  tears,  the  whole 
conduct  of  snrronnding  friends,  excite  artificial 
emotions  in  the  dying — that  superstition  has  a 
prodigious  ascendancy  over  their  imagination — 
that  their  joyful  impressions  of  heaven,  are  the 
mere  reveries  of  a  disturbed  brain — that  their 
serenity,  their  steady  hope,  their  placid  faith, 
are  only  the  natural  consequence  of  long  habit, 
which  never  operates  more  freely  than  when  the 
faculty  of  reflection  is  impaired.  All  this,  and 
more  like  this,  do  unhappy  mortals  who  take, 
or  pretend  to  take,  pleasure  in  putting  an  ex- 
tinguisher upon  the  light  of  life,  detail  with  an 
air  of  superiority,  as  if  they  had  fallen  upon  a 
discovery  which  merits  the  plaudits  of  the 
world.  But  were  it  even  so — were  the  Chris- 
tian victory  over  death  only  a  dream,  it  is  a 
dream  so  sweet  and  blessed,  that  with  the 
scourger  of  Lord  Bolingbroke's  philosophy,  I 
should  "  account  that  man  a  villain  that  awoke 
me — awoke  me  to  truth  and  misery."*  But  I 
am  not  going  to  discuss  this  question.  The  poor 
infidel  does  not  believe  himself,  and  why  should 
others  believe  him  ?  With  one  breath  he  en- 
deavors to  cry  down  the  argument  to  be  de- 
rived in  favor  of  their  religion,  from  the  peaceful 
death  of  Christians ;  and  with  the  next  to  enlist 


*  Hunter's  view  of  the  philosophical  character  and  writings  of 
Lord  Viscount  Bolingbroke. 


On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Finley.       369 

it  in  his  own  service.     He  omits  no  opportunity 
of  celebrating  the  intrepidity  or  composure  dis- 
played by  sceptical  brethren  in  their  last  mo- 
ments.    Let  the  letter  of  Dr.  Adam  Smith,  con- 
cerning the  death  of  David  Hume,  Esq.,  be  a 
proof     Every  sentence  betrays  his  anxiety  to 
set  off  his  friend  to  the  best  advantage.     The 
dullest  observer  cannot  but  perceive  his  design 
to   compare  Mr.  Hume  dying  an  infidel,  with  a 
Christian  dying  in  the  faith  of  Jesus.     Let  us 
draw  out,  at  length,  that  comparison  which  he 
has  only  insinuated  ;  and  that  the  effect  may  be 
more  decisive,  let  us  remember,  that  the  whole 
annals  of  unbelief  do  not  furnish  a  more  favor- 
able example  than  he  has  selected.     Mr.  Hume 
was  a  man  of  undisputed  genius.     His  versatile 
talent,  his  intense  application,  his  large  acquire- 
ments, and  his  uncommon  acuteness,  place  him, 
perhaps,  at  the  head  of  those  enemies  of  revela- 
tion who  attempt  to  reaso7i ;  as  Voltaire  stands 
Avithout  a  rival  among  those  who  only  scoff.     He 
had,  besides,  what  rarely  belongs  to  the  ascer- 
tained infidel,  a  good   moral   reputation.     We 
mean  that  he  was  not  addicted  to  lewdness,  to 
drunkenness,  to  knavery,  to  profane  swearing,* 

*  On  further  recollection,  we  are  compelled  to  deduct  from  Mr. 
Hume's  morality,  his  freedom  from  profane  swearing.  For,  in  an 
account  of  the  life  and  writings  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Robertson,  the 
great  historian,  drawn  up  by  Professor  Dugald  Stewart,  there  is  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Hume  to  the  doctor,  in  which  he  descends  to  the 
coarse  and  vulgar  profanity  of  the  ale-house,  and  the  main-deck. 

Vol.  III.  47 


370       On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Finley. 

or  any  of  those  grosser  vices  which  are  the 
natural  and  ordinary  companions  of  enmity  to 
the  gospel.  For  otherwise,  as  he  labored  to 
unsettle  all  fixed  principles  of  belief;  to  over- 
turn the  whole  system  of  moral  obligation ;  to 
obliterate  a  sense  of  God's  anthoritv  from  the 


To  ask  his  reverend  correspondent,  the  principal  of  the  Universitj* 
of  Edinburgh  ;  the  ecclesiastical  premier  of  the  church  of  Scot- 
land, "  What  the  devil  he  had  to  do  with  that  old  fashioned,  dang- 
ling word,  tvherewith  ?"  and  to  tell  him,  "  I  will  see  you  d d 

sooner,"  viz.  than  "  swallow  your  hath."* — are  such  gross  viola- 
tions of  decency,  that  unless  Mr.  Hume  had  been  accustomed  to 
adorn  his  speech  with  similar  expletives,  they  never  could  have 
found  their  way  into  a  familiar  letter  ;  much  less  into  a  letter  de- 
signed for  the  eye  of  a  man  to  whom,  considering  his  profession 
only,  they  were  a  direct  insult.     We  do  not  wonder  that  Mr.  Stew- 
art should   "  hesitate  about  the  propriety  of  subjecting  to  the  criti- 
cisms of  the  world  so  careless  an  effusion."     But,  knowing  as  we 
do,  the  urbanity  of  that  gentleman's  manners,  the  elegance  of  his 
mind,  and  his  high  sense  of  decorum,  we  much  wonder  that  his 
hesitation  had  not  a  different  issue.     We  fear  that  all  men  of  so- 
briety, we  are  sure  that  all  men  of  religion,  will  refuse  to  accept 
Mr.  Hume's  "  gayety  and  affection,"  as  an  apology  for  his  vileness ; 
or  to  let 'it  pass  off  under  the  mask  of  "  playful  and  good-natured 
irony."   'If  a  philosopher's  "  affection"  must  vent  itself  in  ribaldry, 
if  he  cannot  be  "  playful  and  good-natured,"  without  plundering  the 
waterman  and  scavenger  of  their  appropriate  phraseology,  we  own, 
that  his  conversation  has  no  attractions  for  us.     Such  a  "  glimpse" 
as  this  letter  affords,  of  the  "  writer  and  his  correspondent  in  the 
habits  of  private  intercourse,"  is  far  from  "  suggesting  not  unpleas- 
ing  pictures  of  the  hours  which  they  borrowed  from  business  and 
study."     But  the  most  melancholy  reflection  is,  that  such  intima- 
cies and  correspondences  furnish  an  index  of  Dr.  Robertson's  own 
character.      The  infidels  never  allowed  that  he  had  any  thing  of 
the  Christian  minister  but  his  canonicals  and  his  sermons.     With 
these  exceptions  they  claimed  him  as  their  own,  and  their  claim  ap- 
pears to  have  been  too  well  founded. 

*  An  account  of  the  Life  and  writings  of  William   Robertson,  D.  D.,  pre- 
fixed to  his  works,  p.  80.  81. 


On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Finley.       371 

conscience  ;  and  positively  to  inculcate  the  inno- 
cence of  the  greatest  ci'imes,  he  must  be  ac- 
counted one  of  the  most  flagitiously  immoral 
men  that  ever  lived. 

His  panegyrist,  too,  was  a  man  of  superior 
parts  and  profound  erudition.  The  name  of 
Adam  Smith  will  always  rank  high  in  the  repub- 
lic of  letters,  and  will  never  be  pronounced  but 
with  respect  by  the  political  economist.  Mr. 
Hume  can  have  lost  nothing,  has  possibly  gained 
much,  by  the  pen  of  his  friend.  Taking  him, 
therefore,  as  the  letter  to  Mr.  Strahan  repre- 
sents him,  let  us  contrast  him  with  that  servant 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  £>r.  Samuel  Finley. 

Whatever  be  a  man's  opinions,  one  of  his 
most  rational  occupations  in  the  prospect  of 
leaving  the  world  is  to  look  back  upon  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  has  passed  through  it,  to  com- 
pare his  duties  with  his  conduct,  and  to  inquire 
how  far  he  deserves  the  approbation  or  the  re- 
proach of  his  own  conscience.  With  a  Chris- 
tian this  admits  not  of  dispute.  Nor  will  it  be 
disputed  by  a  Deist,  who  professes  his  faith  in 
the  being  and  providence  of  God,  and  a  state  of 
rewards  and  punishments  hereafter  proportioned 
to  the  degree  of  crime  or  of  Aartue  here.  To 
such  a  one  it  is,  upon  his  own  principles,  a  ques- 
tion of  unspeakable  importance,  whether  he 
shall  commence  his  future  existence  with  hopes 
of  happiness  or  with  fears  of  misery ;  especially 


372      On  the  Death  of  Hume  and  Finley. 

as  he  relies  much  upon  the  efficacy  of  penitence 
and  prayer  in  procuring  forgiveness  of  his  faults, 
indulgence  to  his  infirmities,  and  a  general  miti- 
gation of  whatever  is  unfavorable.  Nay,  the 
mortal  Deist,  or  the  Atheist  himself,  for  they  are 
not  worth  the  trouble  of  a  distinction,  ought,  for 
their  own  sakes  in  this  life,  to  be  so  employed. 
If,  with  the  rejection  of  all  religious  constraint, 
they  have  not  also  uprooted  every  affection  of 
their  nature,  nothing  could  afford  them  more 
gratification  in  the  evening  of  their  days  than 
the  consciousness  of  their  having  contributed 
something  to  the  mass  of  human  comfort.  In 
short,  whether  we  argue  upon  Christian  or  un- 
christian grounds,  it  can  be  the  interest  of  none 
but  the  worthless  and  the  malignant  to  shut  their 
eyes  upon  their  own  history,  and  sink  down  in 
death  as  a  bullock  drops  under  the  knife  of  his 
executioner. 

Yet  strange  as  it  may  appear,  and  inconsistent 
as  it  certainly  is  with  his  high  pretensions,  there 
are  few  things  so  rare  as  a  dying  infidel  taking 
a  deliberate  retrospect  of  life.  We  say  a  deli- 
berate retrospect;  for  it  is  undeniable,  that  on 
many  of  those,  who,  like  the  apostate  Julian, 
waged  implacable  war  with  the  Galilean,  con- 
science, recovering  from  its  slumbers,  has  at  the 
hour  of  death,  or  the  apprehension  of  it,  forced 
an  unwilling  and  tormenting  recollection  of 
their  deeds.     The  point  of  honor  in  their  philo- 


On  the  Death  of  Hume  and  Finley.     373 

sophy  seems  to  be,  and  their  utmost  attainment 
is,  to  keep  completely  out  of  view  both  the  past 
and  the  future.  This  was  evidently  the  case 
with  Mr.  Hume.  Read  over  again  Dr.  Smith's 
letter  to  Mr.  Strahan,  and  you  will  not  find  a 
syllable  from  which  you  could  gather  that  there 
is  an  hereafter,  a  providence,  or  a  God — not  a  sen- 
tence to  indicate  that  Mr.  Hume  believed  he  had 
ever  committed  a  sin,  or  was  in  any  respect  an 
accountable  being. 

Turn  now  away  from  the  philosopher,  and 
hear  what  a  believer  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
has  to  say.  Melting  into  gratitude  for  that 
mercy  which  he  had  received  from  his  heavenly 
Father,  he  goes  back  to  the  commencement  of 
his  Christian  course,  and  desires  his  friend  to 
pray  that  God  "  would  be  pleased  to  let  him  feel 
just  as  he  did  at  that  time  when  he  first  closed 
with  Christ,"  and  the  rapture  of  his  soul  came 
near  to  the  blessedness  of  heaven.  With  deep 
humility  he  owns  his  sinfulness ;  not  a  whisper 
of  extenuation  or  apology  does  he  utter — "  I 
know  not  in  what  language  to  speak  of  my  own 
unworthiness — I  have  been  undutiful."  But 
with  great  tenderness,  as  in  the  presence  of  the 
Omniscient,  he  attests  his  satisfaction  with  time 
spent  in  his  Christian  duties  and  enjoyments. 
"  I  can  truly  say  that  I  have  loved  the  service  of 
God — I  have  honestly  endeavored  to  act  for  God, 
but  with  much  weakness  and  corruption — I  have 


374       On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Pinley. 

tried  my  Master's  yoke,  and  will  never  shrink 
my  neck  from  it."  That  he  had  been  useful  to 
others  and  instrumental  in  their  salvation  was 
to  him.  a  source  of  pure  and  elevated  joy. 
"  The  Lord  has  given  me  many  souls  as  a  crown 
of  my  rejoicing." 

What  think  you,  now,  reader,  of  Mr.  Hume 
and  Dr.  Finley,  with  regard  to  their  retrospect 
of  life  ?  Who  evinces  most  of  the  good  and  the 
virtuous  man  1  Whose  reflections,  is  it  reasona- 
ble to  conclude,  were  the  most  delightful  1  His, 
who  let  none  of  them  escape  his  lips  ?  or  his, 
whose  words  were  inadequate  to  express  their 
abundance  or  their  sweetness  7  No ;  the  one 
had  not  delightful  recollections  to  communicate. 
High  happiness  is  never  selfish.  The  overflowing 
heart  pours  off  its  exuberance  into  the  bosom  of 
a  friend.  And  had  Mr.  H.  had  any  thing  of  this 
sort  to  impart,  his  companions  and  encomiasts 
would  have  shared  in  his  pleasure,  and  would 
not  have  forgotten  to  tell  the  world  of  its  luxury. 
Their  silence  is  a  sufficient  comment. 

Let  us  extend  our  comparison  to  a  particular, 
which,  more  than  almost  any  thing  else,  touches 
the  pride  of  philosophy ;  we  mean  the  dignity 
displayed  by  the  infidel  and  by  the  Christian  re- 
spectively. 

Ask  Dr.  Smith.  He  will  tell  you  that  at  the 
very  time  when  he  knew  his  dissolution  was 
near,  Mr.  Hume  continued  to  "  divert  himself  as 


On  the  death  of  I/ainc  and  Pinky.      375 

usual,  with  correcting  his  own  works  for  a  new 
edition ;  with  reading  books  of  amusement ;  with 
the  conversation  of  his  friends ;  and  sometimes, 
in  the  evening,  with  a  party  at  his  favorite  game 
of  whist."  Behold  the  dying  occupation  of  a 
captain  of  infidelity !  Of  one  who  is  eulogized 
"  as  approaching  as  nearly  to  the  idea  of  a  per- 
fectly wise  and  virtuous  man,  as  perhaps  the  na- 
ture of  human  frailty  will  admit  "^ — his  most  se- 
rious employment  is  "  diverting  himself."  Just 
about  to  yield  up  his  last  breath,  and  ''  diverting 
himself!"  From  what  1  Let  them  answer  who 
know  that  there  are  apt  to  be  troublesome 
visitors  to  the  imagination  and  the  conscience  of 
one  who  has  prostituted  his  powers  to  the  pur- 
pose of  spreading  rebellion  against  the  God  who 
made  him  !  ''  Diverting  himself!"  With  what  ? 
With  correcting  his  own  works  for  a  new  edition ! 
a  considerable  portion  of  which  "  works "  is 
destined  to  prove  that  justice,  mercy,  faith,  and 
all  the  circle  of  both  the  duties  and  charities, 
are  obligatory  only  because  they  are  useful ; 
and,  by  consequence,  that  their  opposites  shall 
be  obligatory  when  they  shall  appear  to  be 
more  useful — that  the  religion  of  the  Lord  Je- 
sus, which  has  "  brought  life  and  immortality  to 
light,"  is  an  imposture — that  adultery  is  a  baga- 
telle, and  suicide  a  virtue  !  With  what  7  With 
reading  books  of  amusemeiit.  The  adventures 
of    Don    Quixote ;    the   tales   of  the  genii ;    a 


376       On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Finley. 

novel,  a  tragedy,  a  farce,  a  collection  of  sonnets ; 
any  thing  but  those  sober  and  searching  treatises 
which  are  fit  for  one  who  "  considers  his  latter 
end."  With  what  1  With  the  conversation  of 
his  friends,  such  as  Dr.  Smith,  and  Dr.  Black, 
another  famous  infidel,  who,  as  they  had  nothing 
inviting  to  discuss  about  futurity,  and  Mr.  H. 
could  not  bear  the  fatigue  of  abstruse  specula- 
tion, must  have  entertained  him  with  all  that 
jejune  small  talk  which  makes  great  wits  look 
so  very  contemptible  when  they  have  nothing  to 
say.  With  what  1  With  an  evening  party  at 
his  favorite  game  of  whist !  A  card  table !  and 
all  that  nauseous  gabble  for  which  the  card 
table  is  renowned !  The  question  is  to  be  de- 
cided, whether  such  stupendous  faculties  as  had 
been  lavished  upon  Mr.  Hume  were  to  be  blasted 
into  annihilation ;  or  expanded  to  the  vision  and 
fruition  of  the  Infinite  Good;  or  converted 
into  inlets  of  endless  pain,  despair,  and  horror  ? 
A  question  which  might  convulse  the  abyss,  and 
move  the  thrones  of  heaven — and  while  the  de- 
cision is  preparing,  preparing  for  him,  Mr.  H. 
sits  down  to  a  gaming-board,  with  gambling 
companions,  to  be  "  diverted  "  with  the  chances 
of  the  cards  and  the  edifying  conversation  to 
which  they  give  rise !  Such  is  the  dignitij  of 
this  almost  "  perfectly  wise  and  virtuous  man !" 
Such  a  iihilosophefs  preparation  for  death ! 


On  the  deal) I  of  Hume  and  Finley.      377 

Let  us  leave  Iiim  at  the  card-table,  and  pay  a 
second  visit  to  Dr.  Finley.  From  his  gracious 
lips  not  a  trifling  word  escapes.  In  his  ardent 
soul,  now^  ready  to  speed  its  flight  to  the  spirits 
of  the  just,  there  is  no  room  for  "  diversion,"  for 
"  correcting"  compositions,  for  "  books  of  amuse- 
ment," or  for  "  games  of  w^hist."  The  everlast- 
ing life  of  those  around  him — the  spiritual  pros- 
perity of  a  congregation  dear  to  him — the  inter- 
ests of  his  Redeemer  amon^  the  nations — these 
these  are  the  themes  which  fill  his  thoughts  and 
dwell  upon  his  tongue.  "  Oh  that  each  of  you," 
says  he  to  the  spectators  of  his  pain,  "  may  ex- 
perience what,  blessed  be  God,  I  do,  when  ye 
come  to  die." — "  Give  my  love  to  the  people  of 
Princeton  :  tell  them  that  I  am  going  to  die,  and 
that  I  am  not  afraid  of  death.  The  Lord  Jesus 
^take  care  of  his  cause  in  the  world." 

The  manner  in  which  Mr.  H.  and  Dr.  F, 
directly  contemplated  death,  and  the  eflfects  of 
death,  presents  another  strong  point  of  contrast. 

It  is  evident  from  the  whole  of  Dr.  Smith's 
narrative,  that  the  former  confined  or  wished  to 
confine  his  view  to  the  mere  physical  event — 
to  the  bodily  anguish  which  it  might  create,  and 
its  putting  a  period  to  earthly  enjoyments.  The 
whole  of  the  philosopher's  "  magnanimity  "  cen- 
tres here.  Allowing  to  his  composure  under 
these  views  of  death  as  much  as  can  reasonably 
be  demanded,  we  do  not  perceive  in  it  all  that 

Vol.  III.  48 


378       On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Finley. 

''  magnanimity "  which  is  perceived  by  Dr.  S, 
Thousands,  who  had  no  pretensions  to  philoso- 
phical pre-eminence,  have  been  Mr.  H.'s  equals 
on  this  ground.  If  he  had  succeeded  in  per- 
suading himself,  as  his  writings  tend  to  persuade 
others,  that  the  spirit  of  man,  like  the  spirit  of 
a  beast,  "  goeth  downwards ;"  that  when  the 
breath  should  leave  his  body,  there  would  be  an 
end  of  Mr.  Hume ;  that  the  only  change  would 
be  to  "  turn  a  few  ounces  of  blood  into  a  dif- 
ferent channel " — to  vary  the  form  of  a  cluster 
of  corpuscles,  or  to  scatter  a  bundle  of  percep- 
tions up  and  down  through  that  huge  collection 
of  impressions  and  ideas,  that  stupendous  mass 
of  nothings  of  which  his  philosophy  had  saga- 
ciously discovered  the  whole  material  and  intel- 
lectual world  to  be  composed — if  this  were  all, 
we  cannot  discern  in  what  his  magnanimity  con- 
sisted. It  is  chiefly  as  a  mortal  event  that  death 
is  interesting — as  an  event,  which,  instead  of  put- 
ting an  end  to  our  existence,  only  introduces  us 
to  a  mode  of  existence  as  much  more  interesting 
than  the  present  as  eternity  is  more  interesting 
than  time. 

It  is  this  view  that  chiefly  engaged  the  at- 
tention of  Dr.  Finley.  In  common  with  others 
he  was  to  undergo  the  pains  of  dissolution. 
But  he  rested  not  in  these.  He  fixed  his  eye 
upon  that  new  form  which  all  his  relations  to 
God,  to  holiness,  to  sin,  and  the  inhabitants  of 
the  future  world,  were  shortly  to  assume.     The 


On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Pinky.      379 

reader,  we  doubt  not,  perceives  the  immense 
disparity  between  these  cases.  Mr.  H.  looks  at 
death  as  it  affects  the  affairs  of  this  world.  Dr. 
F.  as  it  involves  eternal  issues.  Mr.  H.,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  notions,  had  nothing  to  encounter 
but  the  struggles  of  nature,  and  nothing  to  lose 
but  a  few  temporal  enjoyments.  Before  Dr.  F. 
was  the  tribunal  of  God,  and  the  stake  at  hazard 
was  an  immortal  soul.  An  error  here  is  irre- 
trievable ;  the  very  thought  of  its  possibility  is 
enough  to  shake  every  fibre  of  the  frame ;  and 
proportionably  precious  and  certain  must  be 
that  religion  which  can  assure  the  believer  of 
his  safety,  and  convey  him  with  peacefulness 
and  pleasure  to  his  Father's  house. 

This  being  the  case,  let  us  weigh  the  consola- 
tions of  the  philosopher  against  those  of  the 
Christian. 

Dr.  Smith  has  made  the  most  of  them  in  be- 
half of  the  former,  but  a  very  little  scrutiny  will 
show  that  they  are  light  and  meagre  indeed. 
"  I  am  dying,"  they  are  the  words  of  Mr.  H., 
"  as  easily  and  cheerfully  as  my  best  friends 
could  desire."  "  When  he  became  very  weak," 
says  Dr.  Black,  "  it  cost  him  an  effort  to  speak ; 
and  he  died  in  such  a  happy  composure  of  mind, 
that  nothing  could  exceed  it." 

We  are  not  without  suspicion,  that  on  the  part 
of  Mr.  H.  there  is  some  affectation  here  ;  and  on 
the  part  of  his  friends,  some  pretty  high  color- 


380       On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Finley. 

ing.  In  the  mouth  of  a  Christian,  "  composure," 
''  cheerfulness,"  complacency,"  "  resignation," 
"  happiness,"  in  death,  have  a^n  exquisite  mean- 
ing. But  what  meaning  can  they  have  in  the 
mouth  of  one,  the  very  best  of  whose  expecta- 
tions is  the  extinction  of  his  being  1  Is  there 
any  '^  complacency  "  in  the  thought  of  perish- 
ing? any  ''  happiness  "  in  the  dreary  and  dismal 
anticipation  of  being  blotted  out  of  life  ?  It  is 
a  farce ;  it  is  a  mockery  of  every  human  feeling  ; 
and  every  throbbing  of  the  heart  convicts  it  of  a 
lie.  But  Mr.  Hume  expected  a  better  state  of 
existence — nay,  talk  not  of  that.  There  is  not, 
either  in  his  own  expressions  or  those  of  his 
friends,  the  faintest  allusion  to  futurity.  That 
glorious  light,  which  shines  through  the  grave 
upon  the  redeemed  of  the  Lord,  was  the  object 
of  his  derision.  No  comfort  from  this  quarter. 
The  accomplishment  of  his  earthly  wishes  and 
the  prosperity  of  his  near  relatives  are  the  only 
reasons  assigned  for  his  cheerfulness.  But  these 
are  insufficient.  In  thousands  and  ten  thou- 
sands they  have  not  availed  to  preclude  the 
most  alarming  forebodings ;  and  why  should 
they  do  more  for  Mr.  Hume  1 

In  the  next  place,  how  shall  we  interpret  his 
"resignation?"  Resignation  to  what ?  To  the 
Divine  Will  ?  O  no  !  God  was  not  in  all  his 
thoughts.  But  death  was  at  hand,  and  he  could 
not  escape ;  he  submitted  to  a  stroke  which  it 


On  the  death  of  Hume  mid  Pin  ley.      381 

was  impossible  to  avoid.  And  all  that  is  said  of 
his  "  composure/'  and  "  cheerfulness,"  and  "  re- 
signation," and  "  complacency,"  when  measured 
by  the  scale  of  truth,  amounts  to  no  more  than 
a  sottish  unconcern  set  off  with  a  fictitious 
gayety.  It  is  easy  to  work  up  a  fine  description, 
and  it  is  often  most  fine  when  most  remote  from 
the  fact.  Let  any  infidel  between  the  poles  pro- 
duce, if  he  can,  a  reason  that  shall  satisfy  a 
child  why  one,  who  has  lived  without  God, 
should  find  "  complacency  "  in  death.  Nothing 
but  that  "  hope  which  maketh  not  ashamed  "  is 
a  cause  equal  to  such  an  effect.  But  "  hope  " 
beyond  the  grave  is  a  word  which  had  no  place 
in  Mr.  Hume's  vocabulary,  because  the  thing 
had  no  place  in  his  soul.  It  is  plain,  however, 
that  he 

Felt  his  ruling  passion  strong  in  death. 

Whatever  his  decay  had  weakened,  his  desire  to 
see  "  the  downfall  of  some  of  the  prevailing  sys- 
tems of  superstition, '  which  with  Mr.  Hume 
meant  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  destruction 
of  Christianity,  in  every  modification  retained 
its  whole  vigor.  And  thus,  while  venting  his 
spite  at  the  only  "  system "  which  ever  could 
render  death  comfortable,  he  goes  to  Lucian's 
dialogues,  and  edifies  his  friends  with  chattering 
nonsense  about  Charon  and  his  boat !  O  ccecas 
hominivm  mentes  !     Nothing  can  be  more  blind 


382       On  llie  death  of  Hume  and  Finley. 

and  infatuated  than  the  fanaticism  of  philosophy 
''  falsely  so  called."  With  this  puerile  levity  be- 
fore our  eyes,  and  this  contemptible  babbling 
sounding  in  our  ears,  we  must  listen  to  tales  of 
Mr.  Hume's  magnanimity,  complacency,  and  re- 
signation ! 

From  a  barren  exhibition  of  atheism,  let  us 
repair  once  more  to  the  servant  of  God.  In  Dr. 
Finley  we  see  a  man  dying,  not  only  with  cheer- 
fulness, but  with  ecstasy.  Of  his  friends,  his 
wife,  his  children,  he  takes  a  joyful  leave  ;  com- 
mitting all  that  he  held  most  dear  in  this  world, 
not  to  the  uncertainties  of  earthly  fortune,  but 
to  the  "  promises  of  his  God."  Although  his 
temporal  circumstances  were  very  moderate; 
although  he  had  sons  and  daughters  to  provide 
for,  and  slender  means  of  doing  it,  he  felt  not  a 
moment's  uneasiness — Leave  thy  fatherless  chil- 
dren with  me ;  I  will  preserve  them  alive ;  and,  let 
thy  loidows  trust  in  me,  was,  in  his  estimation,  a 
better  security  for  their  support  than  any  inhe- 
ritance in  lands  or  lucre.  And  as  to  death 
j^gglf — who  but  one  "  filled  with  hopes  full  of 
immortality  "  could  use  such  language  as  this — 
"  A  Christian's  death  is  the  best  part  of  his  ex- 
istence " — "  Blessed  be  God !  eternal  rest  is  at 
hand."  "  O  I  shall  triumph  over  every  foe,"  (he 
meant  sin,  Satan,  death,  the  grave,)  '^  the  Lord 
hath  given  me  the  victory — I  exult ;  I  triumph  ! 
Now  I  know  that  it  is  impossible  that  faith  should 


On  the  death  of'  Hume  ami  h^nley.       383 

not  triumph  over  earth  and  hell  " — ''  Lord  Jesus, 
into  thy  hands  I  commit  my  spirit ;  I  do  it  with 
confidence  ;  1  do  it  with  fidl  assurance.  I  kuoio 
that  thou  wilt  keep  that  which  I  have  committed 
unto  thee  7"  We  appeal  to  all  the  world,  whe- 
ther any  thing  like  this,  any  thing  that  deserves 
so  much  as  to  be  named  in  comparison,  ever  fell 
from  the  lips  of  an  infidel.  How  poor,  how 
mean,  how  miserable,  does  he  look,  when  brought 
to  the  contrast !  Let  the  reader  review  again 
the  situation  of  Dr.  Finley,  ponder  his  words, 
and  mark  their  spirit ;  and  then  let  him  go  back 
to  Mr.  Hume's  "  diversion  " — to  his  correcting  his 
atheistical  writings  for  a  new  edition — to  his 
"  books  of  amusement  " — to  his  "game  of  whist  " 
— to  his  insipid  raillery  about  Charon  and  his 
boat !  Truly  the  infidels  have  cause  to  look 
big,  and  despise  the  followers  of  Jesus  Christ ! 
"  Pray,  sir,"  said  a  young  man  to  the  late  Dr. 
Black,  in  the  presence  of  a  juvenile  company, 
at  the  Dr.'s  own  table,  •■  Pray,  sir,  how  did 
Mr.  Hume  die?"  "Mr.  Hume,"  answered  the 
sceptical  chemist,  with  an  air  of  great  signifi- 
cance, "  Mr.  Hume  died  as  he  lived,  a  philoso- 
phefJ'  Dr.  Black  himself  has  aided  Dr.  Smith 
in  telling  us  what  the  death  of  a  philosopher  is. 
It  has  taught  us,  if  nothing  before  did,  that  the 
pathetic  exclamation,  "  Let  my  soul  be  with  the 
philosophers,"  belongs  to  one  who  is  a  stranger 
to  truth  and  happiness.     If  they  resemble  Mr. 


384       On  the  death  of  Hwne  and  Firdey. 

Hume,  we  will  most  devoutly  exclaim,  "  Fur- 
thest from  them  is  best."  Let  oui^  souls  be  with 
the  Christians !  with  the  humble  believers  in 
that  Jesus  who  is  "  the  resurrection  and  the  life." 
Let  them  be  with  Samuel  Fi7iley  ;  let  them  not 
be  with  David  Hume  ! 

We  cannot  close  these  strictures  without 
again  reminding  the  reader,  that  no  instance  of 
composure  in  death  is  to  be  found  more  favorable 
to  the  infidel  boast  than  the  instance  of  Mr. 
Hume.  And  yet,  how  jejune  and  forlorn  does 
he  appear  in  compai'ison  of  Dr.  Finley.  The 
latter  longs  for  his  departure,  ''  as  the  hireling 
pants  for  the  evening  shade ;"  and  when  it 
comes,  he  pours  around  him  his  kindly  benedic- 
tions ;  his  eye  beams  with  celestial  brilliancy  • 
he  shouts.  Salvation !  and  is  away  to  "  the  bo- 
som of  his  Father  and  his  God." 

But  in  the  other  all  is  blank.  No  joy  spar- 
kles in  his  eye ;  no  hope  swells  his  bosom ;  an 
unmeaning  smile  -is  on  his  countenance,  and  fri- 
gid ridicule  dishonors  his  lips.  Be  it  never  for- 
gotten, that  no  infidels  die  in  triumph !  The 
utmost  to  which  they  pretend  is  dying  with 
calmness.  Even  this  rarely  happens ;  and,  the 
scripture  being  judge,  it  is  a  part  of  their  ac- 
cursedness.  It  imparts  the  deepest  horror  to  the 
surprise  of  the  eternal  world.  But,  if  you  re- 
verse the  picture,  and  ask  how  many  infidels 
close  their  career  in  anguish,  in  distraction,  in  a 


On  the  death  of  Hume  and  Fin  ley.      385 

fearful  looking  for  of  judgment  and  fiery  indig- 
nation which  shall  devour  the  adversaries? 
liow  endless  is  the  train  of  wretches,  how 
piercing  their  cry  !  That  arch  blasphemer,  Vol- 
taire, left  the  world  with  hell  anticipated ;  and 
we  hear  so  frequently  of  his  disciples  "  going  to 
their  own  place  "  in  a  similar  manner,  that  the 
dreadful  narratives  lose  their  effect  by  repeti- 
tion. It  was  quite  recently  that  a  youth  in  the 
state  of  New  York,  who  had  been  debauched 
by  the  ribaldrous  impiety  of  Paine,  yielded  up 
tlie  ghost  with  dire  imprecations  on  the  hour 
when  he  first  saw  an  infidel  book,  and  on  the 
murderer  who  first  put  it  into  his  hand.  But 
who  ever  heard  of  a  dying  man's  cursing  the 
day  in  which  he  believed  in  Jesus'?  While 
such  an  instance,  we  are  bold  to  assert,  never 
occurred,  nothing  is  more  common  than  the 
peaceful  death  of  them  who  have  "  tasted  that 
the  Lord  is  gracious."  They  who  see  practical 
Christianity  in  those  retreats  which  the  eye  of  a 
profane  philosopher  seldom  penetrates,  could 
easily  fill  a  long  record  of  dying  beds  softened 
with  that  bland  submission,  and  cheered  with 
til  at  victorious  hope,  which  threw  so  heavenly 
.1  lustre  round  the  bed  of  Dr.  Finley. 

These  things  carry  with  them  their  own  re- 
commendation to  the  conscience,  which  is  not 
yet  ''  seared  as  with  a  hot  iron."  If  our  pages 
fall  into  the  hands  of  the  young^^we  affectionately 

A^oL.  III.  49 


386       On  the  death  of  Jlimie  and  Finley. 

entreat  them  to  "  remember  their  Creator  in  the 
days  of  their  youth ;"  "  to  make  their  calling  and 
their  election  .sure,"  before  they  be  "  hardened 
by  the  deceitfulness  of  sin."  Rich  are  the  tints 
of  that  beauty,  and  sweet  the  fragrance  of  those 
blossoms,  on  which,  in  the  morning  of  life,  the 
Lord  our  God  sheds  down  the  dews  of  his  bless- 
ing. You  would  not  wish  to  be  associated  with 
infidels  in  their  death ;  shun  the  contagion  of 
their  principles  while  you  are  in  spirits  and  in 
health.  Your  hearts  cannot  but  sigh,  "  Let  me 
die  the  death  of  the  righteous,  and  let  my  last 
end  be  like  his."  Cast  in,  then,  your  lot  with 
him ;  choose  for  your  own  God  the  God  of  Sa- 
muel Finley;  and  like  him,  you  shall  have 
"  hope  in  your  death  ;"  like  him,  you  shall  "  be 
had  in  everlasting  remembrance,"  when  "the 
memory  of  the  wicked  shall  rot." 


CONVERSATION 


WITH  A 


YOUNG    TRAVELER. 


CONVERSATION 


WITH  A 


YOUNG   TRAVELER, 


Every  one  has  remarked  the  mixed,  and  often 
ill-assorted  company,  which  meets  in  a  public 
packet  or  stage-coach.  The  conversation,  with 
all  its  variety,  is  commonly  insipid,  frequently 
disgusting,  and  sometimes  insufferable.  There 
are  exceptions.  An  opportunity  now  and  then 
occurs  of  spending  an  hour  in  a  manner  not  un- 
worthy of  rational  beings ;  and  the  incidents  of 
a  stage-coach  produce  or  promote  salutary  im- 
pressions. 

A  few  years  ago,  one  of  the  stages  which  ply 
between  our  two  principal  cities,  was  filled  with 
a  group  which  could  never  have  been  drawn  to- 
gether by  mutual  choice.  In  the  company  was 
a  young  man  of  social  temper,  aflable  manners, 
and  considerable  information.  His  accent  was 
barely  sufficient  to  show  that  the  English  was 
not  his  native  tongue,  and  a  very  slight  peculi- 


390  Conversation  with  a 

arity  in  the  pronunciation  of  the  tk  ascertained 
him  to  be  a  Hollander.  He  had  early  entered 
into  military  life;  had  borne  both  a  Dutch  and 
French  commission  ;  had  seen  real  service,  had 
traveled,  was  master  of  the  English  language; 
and  evinced,  by  his  deportment,  that  he  was  no 
stranger  to  the  society  of  gentlemen.  He  had, 
however,  in  a  very  high  degree,  a  fault  too  com- 
mon among  military  men,  and  too  absurd  to  find 
an  advocate  among  men  of  sense :  he  swore  pro- 
fanely and  incessantly. 

While  the  horses  were  changing,  a  gentleman 
who  sat  on  the  same  seat  with  him,  took  him  by 
the  arm,  and  requested  the  favor  of  his  company 
in  a  short  walk.  When  they  were  so  far  retired 
as  not  to  be  overheard,  the  former  observed, 
"  Although  I  have  not  the  honour  of  your  ac- 
quaintance, I  perceive,  sir,  that  your  habits  and 
feelings  are  those  of  a  gentleman,  and  that  no- 
thing can  be  more  repugnant  to  your  wishes 
than  giving  unnecessary  pain  to  any  of  your 
company."  He  started,  and  replied,  "  Most  cer- 
tainly, sir !  I  hope  I  have  committed  no  offense 
of  that  sort." 

"  You  will  pardon  me,"  replied  the  other,  ''  for 
pointing  out  an  instance  in  which  you  have  not 
altogether  avoided  it." 

"  Sir,"  said  he,  ''I  shall  be  much  your  debtor 
for  so  friendly  an  act:  for,  upon  my  honor,  I 
cannot  conjecture  in  what  I  have  transgressed." 


Young  Traveler.  391 

"If  you,  sir,"  continued  the  former,  "had  a 
very  dear  friend  to  whom  you  were  under  un- 
speakable obligations,  should  you  not  be  deeply 
wounded  by  any  disrespect  to  him,  or  even  by 
hearing  his  name  introduced  and  used  with  a 
frequency  of  repetition  and  a  levity  of  air  in- 
compatible with  the  regard  due  to  his  cha- 
racter 1" 

"  Undoubtedly,  and  I  should  not  permit  it !  but 
I  know  not  that  I  am  chargeable  with  indecorum 
to  any  of  your  friends." 

"  Sir,  my  God  is  my  best  friend,  to  whom  I  am 
under  infinite  obligations.  I  think  you  must  re- 
collect that  you  have  very  frequently,  since  we 
commenced  our  journey,  taken  his  name  in  vain. 
This  has  given  to  me  and  to  others  of  the  com- 
pany, excruciating  pain." 

"  Sir,"  answered  he,  with  very  ingenuous  em- 
phasis, "  I  have  done  wrong.  I  confess  the  im- 
propriety. I  am  ashamed  of  a  practice  which  I 
am  sensible  has  no  excuse ;  but  I  have  imper- 
ceptibly fallen  into  it,  and  I  really  swear  without 
being  conscious  that  I  do  vso.  I  will  endeavor 
to  abstain  from  it  in  future ;  and  as  you  are  next 
me  in  the  seat,  I  shall  thank  you  to  touch  my 
elbow  as  often  as  I  trespass."  This  was  agreed 
upon :  the  horn  sounded,  and  the  travelers  re- 
sumed their  places. 

In  the  space  of  four  or  five  miles  the  officer's 
elbow  was  jogged  every  few  seconds.     He  al- 


392  Conversation  with  a 

way,s  colored,  but  bowed,  and  received  the  hint 
without  the  least  symptom  of  displeasure ;  and 
in  a  few  miles  more  so  mastered  his  propensity 
to  swearing,  that  not  an  oath  was  heard  from  his 
lips  for  the  rest,  which  was  the  greater  part  of 
the  journey. 

He  was  evidently  more  grave ;  and  having  ru- 
minated some  time,  after  surveying  first  one  and 
then  another  of  the  company,  turned  to  his  ad- 
monisher,  and  addressed  him  thus : 

"  You  are  a  clergyman,  I  presume,  sir." 

"  I  am  considered  as  such."  He  paused  :  and 
then,  with  a  smile,  indicated  liis  di.sbelief  in  di- 
vine revelation,  in  a  way  which  invited  conversa- 
tion on  that  subject. 

''  I  have  never  been  able  to  convince  myself 
of  the  truth  of  revelation." 

"Possibly  not.     But  what  is  your  difficulty  7" 

"  I  dislike  the  nature  of  its  proofs.  They  are 
so  subtle,  so  distant,  so  wrapt  iji  mystery,  so  me- 
taphysical, that  I  get  lost,  and  can  arrive  at  no 
certain  conclusion." 

"  I  cannot  admit  the  fact  to  be  as  you  repre- 
sent it.  My  impressions  are  altogether  different. 
Nothing  seems  to  me  more  plain  and  popiilar; 
more  level  to  every  common  understanding  ; 
more  remote  from  all  cloudy  speculation,  or 
teazing  subtleties,  than  some  of  the  principal 
proofs  of  divine  revelation.  They  are  drawn 
from  great  and  incontestible  facts ;  they  are  ac- 


Young  Traveler.  393 

cuiiiulatiiig'  every  hour.  They  liave  grown  into 
such  a  mass  oi"  evidence,  that  the  supposition  of 
its  falsehood  is  iiiliuitely  more  incredible  than 
any  one  mystery  in  the  volumes  of  revelation, 
or  even  than  all  their  mysteries  put  together. 
Your  imjuiries,  sir,  appear  to  liave  been  unhap- 
pily directed — but  what  sort  of  j)roof  do  you  de- 
sire, and  what  would  satisfy  you  ?" 

"  Such  proofs  as  accompany  physical  science. 
This  I  have  always  loved  ;  for  I  never  find  it  de- 
ceive me.  I  rest  upon  it  with  entire  conviction. 
There  is  no  mistake,  and  can  be  no  dispute  in 
mathematics.  And  if  a  revelation  comes  from 
God,  why  have  we  nut  such  evidence  for  it  as 
mathematical  demonstration  ] ' 

*'  Sir,  you  are  too  good  a  philosopher  not  to 
know  that  the  nature  of  evidence  must  be 
adapted  to  the  nature  of  its  object ;  that  if  you 
break  in  uj)on  this  adaptation,  you  will  have  no 
evidence  at  aiJ ;  seeing  that  evidence  is  no  more 
interchangeable  than  objects.  If  you  ask  for 
mathematical  evidence,  you  must  confine  your- 
self to  mathenuitical  disquisitions.  Your  subject 
must  be  quantity.  If  you  wish  to  pursue  a  moral 
investigation,  you  nuist  quit  your  mathematics, 
and  confine  yourself  to  moral  evidence.  Your 
subject  must  be  the  relations  which  subsist  be- 
tween intelligent  beings.  It  would  be  quite  as 
wise  to  apply  a  rule  in  ethics  to  the  calculation 
of  an  eclipse,  as  to  call  for  Euclid  when  we  want 
Vol.  III.  50 


394  ConDcrsafAun  loltJi  a 

to  know  oiir  duly,  or  to  submit  the  question, 
"  whether  God  has  spoken,"  to  the  test  of  a 
problem  in  the  conic  sections.  How  would  you 
prove  mathematically  that  bread  nourishes  men, 
and  that  fevers  kill  them  ?  Yet  you  and  I  both 
are  as  firmly  convinced  of  the  truth  of  these 
propositions,  as  of  any  mathematical  demonstra- 
tion whatever  ;  and  should  I  call  them  in  ques- 
tion, my  neighbors  woidd  either  pity  me  as  an 
idiot,  or  shut  me  up  as  a  madman.  It  is,  there- 
fore, a  great  mistake  to  suppose,  that  there  is  no 
satisfactory  nor  certain  evidence  but  what  is  re- 
ducible to  mathematics." 

This  train  of  reflection  appeared  new  to  him. 
For,  however  obvious  it  is,  we  must  remember, 
that  nothing  is  more  superficial  than  fieethinking 
philosophy,  and  nothing  more  credulous  than  its 
unbelief.  Dogmatical  positions,  asserted  with 
confidence,  set  off  with  small  ridicule,  and  favor- 
able to  native  depravity,  have  a  prodigious  ef- 
fect upon  the  volatile  youth;  and  persuade  him, 
that  they  have  enlightened  his  understanding, 
when  they  have  only  flattered  his  vanity,  or  cor- 
rupted his  heart. 

The  ofiicer,  though  staggered,  made  an  effort 
to  maintain  his  ground,  and  lamented  that  the 
"  objections  to  other  modes  of  reasoning  are  nu- 
merous and  perplexing,  while  the  mathematical 
conclusion  puts  all  scepticism  at  defiance." 


rouni^  Travpler,  395 

"  Sir, '  rejoined  the  clergyman^  ''  objertions 
against  a  thing  fairly  proved,  are  of  no  weight. 
The  proof  rests  upon  our  knowledge,  and  the 
objections  upon  our  ignorance.  It  is  true,  tliat 
moral  demonstrations  and  religions  doctrines 
may  be  attacked  in  a  very  ingenious  and  plansi- 
ble  manner,  because  they  involve  questions  on 
which  our  ignorance  is  greater  than  our  know- 
ledge ;  but  still  our  knowledge  is  knowledge ; 
or,  in  other  words,  our  certainty  is  certainty. 
Ill  mathematical  reasoning  our  knowledge  is 
greater  than  our  ignorance.  When  you  have 
proved  that  the  three  angles  of  every  triangle  arc 
equal  to  tnio  right  angles^  there  is  an  end  of 
doubt ;  because  there  are  no  materials  for  igno- 
rance to  work  up  into  phantoms;  but  your  know- 
ledge is  really  no  more  certain  than  your  know- 
ledge on  any  other  subjeci. 

"There  is  also  a  deception  in  this  matter. 
The  defect  complained  of  is  supposed  to  exist  in 
the  nature  of  the  iwoof ;  whereas  it  exists,  for 
the  most  part,  in  the  mind  of  the  inquirer.  It  is 
impossible  to  tell  how  far  the  influence  of  human 
depravity  obscures  the  light  of  human  reason.' 

At  the  mention  of  '"  depravity, '  the  officer 
smiled,  and  seemed  inclined  to  jest:  probablv 
suspecting,  as  is  common  w  ith  men  of  that  clas.'^, 
that  his  antagonist  w^as  going  to  retreat  into  his 
creed,  and  intrench  himself  behind  a  technical 


396  Conversation  with  a 

term,  instead    of  an    argument,     The  triumph 
was  premature. 

"  You  do  not  imagine,  sir,"  said  he,  continu- 
ing his  discourse  to  the  otficer,  "  you  do  not  ima- 
gine that  a  man  who  has  been  long  addicted  to 
stealing,  feels  the  force  of  reasoning  against  theft 
as  strongly  as  a  man  of  tried  honesty.  If  you  hesi- 
tate, proceed  a  step  further.  You  do  not  imagine 
that  an  Iiabitiuil  thief  feels  as  much  abhorrence 
of  his  own  trade  and  character,  as  a  man  who 
never  committed  an  act  of  theft  in  his  whole  life. 
And  you  will  not  deny  that  the  practice  of  any 
crime  gradually  weakens,  and  frequently  de- 
stroys, the  sense  of  its  turpitude.  This  is  a 
strong  fact,  which  as  a  philo.sopher,  you  are 
bound  to  explain.  To  me  it  is  clear  as  the  day, 
that  his  vice  has  debauched  his  intellect :  for  it 
is  indisputable,  that  the  considerations  which 
once  fdled  him  with  horror,  produce  no2o  no  more 
impression  upon  him  than  they  would  produce 
upon  a  horse.  Why  ?  Has  the  vice  changed  1 
Have  tlie  considerations  changed  ?  No.  The 
vice  is  as  pernicious,  and  the  considerations  are 
as  strong,  as  ever.  But  his  powder  of  perceiving 
truth  is  diminished  ;  and  diminished  by  his  vice  ; 
for,  had  he  not  fallen  into  it,  the  considerations 
would  have  retained,  aud,  (should  he  be  saved 
from  it,)  they  would  resume  their  original  force 
upon  his  mind.  Permit  yourself,  for  one  mo- 
ment to  reflect  how  liard  it  is  to  persuade  men 


Vouiig  Ti-avA'Jcr.  1597 

of  the  virtues  of  others  against  whom  tiiey  are 
prejudiced!  You  shall  bring  no  proof  of  the 
virtues  which  the  prejudice  shall  not  resist  or 
evade.  Remove  the  prejudice,  and  the  proof 
appears  invincible.  Why  ?  Have  the  virtues 
changed  ?  has  the  proof  been  strengthened  ? 
No.  But  the  power  of  perceiving  truth  is  in- 
creased ;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  the  impe- 
diment to  perceiving  it,  is  taken  away.  If,  then, 
there  are  bad  passions  among  men ;  and  if  the 
object  of  Divine  rc^velation  is  to  control  and  rec- 
tify them ;  it  follows,  that  a  man  to  whom  the 
revelation  is  proposed,  will  be  blind  to  its  evi- 
dence, in  exact  proportion  to  the  perverting  in- 
fluence of  those  passions.  And  were  the  human 
mind  free  from  corruption,  there  is  no  reason 
whatever  to  think  that  a  moral  argument  would 
not  be  as  conclusive  as  a  mathematical  argu- 
ment is  now ;  and  that  the  principles  of  moral 
and  religious  science  would  not  command  an 
assent  as  instantaneous  and  peremptory  as  that 
which  is  commanded  by  mathematical  axioms." 

After  a  short  pause,  in  which  no  reply  was 
made  by  the  ofliccr,  and  the  looks  of  the  com- 
pany revealed  their  sentiments,  the  clergyman 
proceeded  : 

"  But  what  Avill  you  say,  sir,  should  I  endea- 
vor to  turn  the  tables  upon  you,  by  showing 
that  the  evidence  of  your  physical  science  is  not 
without  its  difficulties ;  and  that  objections  can 


398  Conversdtion  irifh  a 

be  urged  against  mathematical  demonstration 
more  puzzling  and  unanswerable  than  any  ob- 
jections against  moral  evidence  V 

"■  I  shall  yield  the  cause;  but  I  am  sure  that 
the  condition  is  impossible." 

"  Let  us  try,"  said  the  other. 

"  I  begin  with  a  common  case.  The  Newto- 
nian system  of  the  world  is  so  perfectly  settled, 
that  no  scholar  presumes  to  question  it.  Go, 
then,  to  a  peasant  who  never  heard  of  Newton, 
nor  Copernicus,  nor  the  solar  system ;  and  tell 
him  that  the  earth  moves  round  its  axis,  and 
round  the  sun.  He  will  stare  at  you,  to  see 
whether  you  be  not  jeering  him ;  and  when  he 
sees  you  are  in  earnest,  he  will  laugh  at  you  for 
a  fool.  Ply  him,  now,  with  your  mathematical  and 
astronomical  reasoning.  He  will  answer  you, 
that  he  believes  his  own  eyesight  more  than  your 
learning;  and  his  eyesight  tells  him  the  sun 
moves  round  the  earth.  And  as  for  the  earth's 
turning  round  upon  her  axis,  he  will  say,  that 
'  he  has  often  hung  a  kettle  over  the  kitchen-fire 
at  night,  and  when  he  came  back  in  the  morn- 
ing, it  was  hanging  there  still,  but,  had  the  earth 
turned  round,  the  kettle  would  have  been  turned 
over,  and  the  mash  spilled  over  the  floor.'  You 
are  amused  with  the  peasant's  simplicity,  but 
you  cannot  convince  him.  His  objection  is,  in 
his  own  eyes,  insurmoimtable  ;  he  will  tell  the 
affair  to  his  neighbors  as  a  good  story  ;  and  they 


Youii^  Traveler.  399 

will  agree  that  he  iairly  shut  the  philosopher's 
mouth.  You  may  reply,  that  '  the  peasant  was 
introduced  into  the  middle  of  a  matured  science, 
and  that,  not  having  learned  its  elements,  he 
was  unsupplied  with  the  principles  of  correct 
judgment.'  True;  but  your  solution  has  over- 
thrown yourself.  A  freethinker,  when  he  hears 
some  great  doctrine  of  Christianity,  lets  ofl'  a 
small  objection,  and  runs  away  laughing  at  the 
folly,  or  railing  at  the  imposture  of  all  who  ven- 
ture to  defend  a  divine  revelation ;  he  gathers 
his  brother  unbelievers,  and  they  unite  with  him 
in  wondering  at  the  w  eakness  or  the  impudence 
of  Christians.  He  is  in  the  very  situation  of  the 
peasant.  He  bolts  into  the  heart  of  a  grand  re- 
ligious system ;  he  has  never  adverted  to  its  first 
principles,  and  then  he  complains  that  the  evi- 
dence is  bad.  But  the  fault  in  neither  case  lies 
in  the  evidence:  it  lies  in  the  ignorance  or  ob- 
stinacy of  the  objector.  The  peasant's  ground 
is  as  firm  as  the  infidel's.  The  proof  of  the  New- 
tonian system  is  to  the  former  as  distant,  subtle, 
and  cloudy,  as  the  proof  of  revelation  can  be  to 
the  latter;  and  the  objection  of  the  one,  as  good 
as  the  objection  of  the  otiier.  If  the  depravity 
of  men  had  as  much  interest  in  persuading  them 
that  the  earth  is  not  globular,  and  does  not  move 
round  the  sun,  as  it  has  in  persuading  them  that 
the  Bible  is  not  true,  a  mathematical  demonstra- 


400  Conversation  loith  a 

tion  would  fail  of  converting  them,  although  the 
demonstrator  were  an  angel  of  God ! 

^'  But  \vith  respect  to  the  other  point,  viz.  that 
there  are  objections  to  mathematical  evidence 
more  puzzling  and  unanswerable  than  can  be 
alledged  against  moral  reasoning,  take  the  two 
following  instances : 

"  It  is  mathematically  demonstrated  that  mat- 
ter is  infinitely  divisible  :  that  is,  has  an  infinite 
number  of  parts:  a  line,  then,  of  half  an  inch 
long,  has  an  infinite  number  of  parts.  Who 
does  not  see  the  absurdity  of  an  infinite  half- 
inch?  Try  the  difliculty  another  way.  It  requires 
some  portion  of  time  to  pass  any  portion  of 
space.  Then  as  your  half-inch  has  an  infinite 
number  of  parts,  it  requires  an  infinite  number 
of  portions  of  time  for  a  moving  point  to  pass 
by  the  infinite  number  of  parts  :  but  an  infinite 
number  of  portions  of  time,  is  an  eternity ! 
Consequently  it  requires  an  eternity,  or  some- 
thing like  it,  to  move  half  an  inch  /" 

"  But,  sir,"  interposed  the  officer,  ^'  yoa  do  not 
deny  the  accuracy  of  the  demonstration,  that 
matter  is  infinitely  divisible  !"  "  Not  in  the  least, 
sir  ;  I  perceive  no  flaw  in  the  chain  of  demon- 
stration, and  yet  I  perceive  the  result  to  be  infi- 
nitely absurd. 

"  Again  :  it  is  mathematically  demonstrated 
that  a  straight  line,  called  the  asymptote  of  the 
hyperbola,  may  eternally  approach  the  curve  of 


Young  Ti^aveler.  401 

the  hyperbola,  and  yet  can  never  meet  it.  Now, 
as  all  demonstrations  are  built  upon  axioms,  an 
axiom  must  always  be  plainer  than  a  demon- 
stration :  and  to  my  judgment  it  is  as  plain,  that, 
if  two  lines  continually  approach,  they  shall 
meet,  as  that  the  whole  is  greater  than  its  part. 
Here,  therefore,  I  am  fixed.  I  have  a  demon- 
stration directly  in  the  teeth  of  an  axiom,  and 
am  equally  incapable  of  denying  either  side  of 
the  contradiction." 

"  Sir,"  exclaimed  the  officer,  clapping  his 
hands  together,  ''  I  own  I  am  beat,  completely 
beat :  I  have  nothing  more  to  say." 

A  silence  of  some  minutes  succeeded ;  when 
the  young  military  traveler  said  to  his  theolo- 
gical friend,  "1  have  studied  all  religions,  and 
have  not  been  able  to  satisfy  myself." 

"  No,  sir,"  answered  he,  "there  is  one  religion 
which  you  have  not  yet  studied." 

"  Pray,  sir,"  cried  the  officer,  roused  and  eager, 
"  what  is  that  ?" 

"  The  religion,"  replied  the  other,  "  of  salva- 
tion through  the  redemption  of  the  Son  of  God : 
the  religion  which  will  sweeten  your  pleasures, 
and  soften  your  sorrows ;  which  will  give  peace 
to  your  conscience,  and  joy  to  your  heart ;  which 
will  bear  you  up  under  the  pressure  of  evils 
here,  and  shed  the  light  of  immortality  on  the 
gloom  of  the  grave.  This  religion,  I  believe, 
sir,  you  have  yet  to  study." 

Vol.  Hi.  51 


402     Conversation  loith  a  Young  Traveler. 

The  officer  put  his  hands  upon  his  face  ;  then 
languidly  clasping  them,  let  them  fall  down  ; 
forced  a  smile,  and  said,  with  a  sigh,  "  We  must 
all  follow  what  we  think  best."  His  behavior 
afterward  was  perfectly  decorous.  Nothing  fur- 
ther is  known  of  him. 


Note.  The  individual  by  whom  the  "  Conversation  with  a  Young 
Traveler"  was  held,  was  the  Rev.  Dr.  John  Mason,  the  father  of 
the  author,  the  first  pastor  of  the  Scotch  Presbyterian  Church,  in 
the  city  of  New  York. 

A  considerable  time  after  it  occurred,  a  knock  was  heard  at  the 
door  of  Dr.  M.  at  a  very  early  hour,  and  a  note,  addressed  to  him, 
was  handed  in,  accompanied  by  a  handsome  Beaver  Hat.  The 
note  was  from  the  "  Young  Traveler"  and  its  purport  "  to  remind 
Dr.  M.  of  the  circumstances  under  which  he  had  once  met  with  him  ; 
to  inform  him,  that,  in  consequence  of  what  he  had  then  heard,  he 
had  been  induced  to  study  the  religion  of  Jesus  ;  that  his  investi- 
gation had  resulted  in  an  entire  conviction  of  the  divine  origin  of 
that  religion  ;  and  that  by  the  blessing  of  God,  his  remarks  had 
been,  as  he  hoped,  made  instrumental  to  the  salvation  of  his  soul." 

He  further  added,  "  that  he  had  recently  received  orders  to  re- 
turn to  Europe  ;  had  arrived  in  the  city  late  on  the  preceding  even- 
ing, and  was  about  to  sail  that  morning ;  that  he  should  not  have 
time  to  call  on  Dr.  M.,  but  begged  him  to  accept  the  assurance  of 
his  affectionate  regard ;  that  in  all  human  probability  he  should 
never  see  him  on  earth,  but  he  indulged  what  he  trusted  was  a 
well-founded  hope,  that  they  should  spend  a  happy  eternity  to- 
gether." 

"a  word  spoken  in  season,  how  good  is  it  !" 


HINTS    ON    THE    INSUFFICIENCY 


THE    LIGHT  OF    NATURE. 


HINTS    ON    THE    INSUFFICIENCY 


THE    LIGHT    OF    NATURE. 


The  light  of  nature  looms  largely  in  all  onr 
treatises  upon  the  evidences  of  religion,  forming 
in  most  of  them  a  sort  of  groundwork  upon 
which  the  fabric  of  revelation  rests;  and  is 
esteemed  of  material  importance  in  consulting 
the  real  glory  of  our  nature,  and  its  happiness 
through  all  the  states  of  being  which  lie  be- 
fore it. 

Its  value  is  highly  overrated,  and  that  which 
I  propose  to  prove,  is,  the  utter  insufficiency  of 
unassisted  reason  to  make  those  discoveries 
concerning  God,  ourselves,  our  duties,  and 
our  destination,  which  are  simply  necessary 
to  our  happiness,  and,  therefore,  the  absolute 


406  Insufficiency  of  the 

need  of  a^pecial  communication,  on  all  these 
particulars,  from  God  himself;  which  com- 
munication we  call  Revelation. 

This  general  position  has  much  hostility  to 
encounter.  A  great  number  of  men,  of  whom 
there  is  no  lack  in  our  own  country,  deem  what 
they  term  natw'al  religion,  or  those  deductions 
which  we  are  able  to  make,  by  the  force  of  our 
7xason  alone,  from  the  works  of  creation  and 
providence,  concerning  their  Divine  Author  and 
our  relations  to  him,  and  the  duties  required  of 
us,  to  be  amply  sufficient  for  all  the  purposes  of 
instruction  and  blessedness. 

These  men  are  distinguished  by  the  name  of 
Deists,  i.  e.  who  admit  the  being  and  government 
of  God,  but  utterly  deny  the  reality  or  neces- 
sity of  a  special  revelation. 

Of  these  there  are,  or  have  been  two  classes, 
known  by  the  names  of  mortal  and  immortal 
Deists ;  the  fir.st  bearing  a  strong  resemblance  to 
those  philosophists  of  the  French  revolution, 
who  pronounced  Death  to  be  an  eternal  sleep ; 
the  second,  more  sober  and  modest,  conceding 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  a  state  of  future 
rewards  and  punishments.  Our  debate  is  chiefly 
with  these,  the  mortal  Deists  being  rather  Athe- 
ists than  any  thing  else,  (and  for  an  Atheist  I 
know  of  no  more  suitable  argument  than  a 
shaven  head  and  a  blistering  cap- — a  straight 
waistcoat  and  a  maniac's  cell.) 


Light  of  JVcUure.  407 

There  is  great  and  confident  talk  about  natu- 
ral religion  even  in  the  Christian  world.  The 
advocates  of  it  here,  it  is  true,  expressly  deny  its 
sufficiency  to  lead  men  to  eternal  happiness ; 
but  they  make  it  to  contain  a  great  many  fun- 
damental truths,  and  represent  them  as  the  dis- 
coveries of  mere  reason.  The  effect  has  been,  and 
must  be,  the  converting  of  the  schools  of  natural 
religion  and  moral  philosophy  into  mere  hotbeds 
of  Deism ;  and  thus,  with  the  very  best  inten- 
tions, good  and  upright  men  have  in  various 
parts  of  the  world  been  imdermining  the  foun- 
dations of  that  divine  religion  which  is  taught 
in  the  scriptures. 

But  that  we  may  not  do  these  worthy  men 
injustice,  we  must  remove  a  mistake  into  which 
they  have  fallen  in  supposing  that  the  scriptures 
bear  them  out  in  their  doctrine  of  this  natural 
religion. 

They  read  in  their  Bibles  that  the  heavens  de- 
dare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  fcrmamcnt  shoiceth 
his  liandiwork.  They  read  that  tliat  wkicli  may 
he  k7ioimi  of  God  is  manifest  in  them  who  hold 
the  truth  in  righteousness,  because  God  hath 
showed  it  unto  them :  {For  the  invisible  things  of 
him  from  the  creation  of  the  loorld  are  clearly 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  tliat  are 
made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead .)  so 

THAT  THEY  ARK  WITHOUT  EXCUSE. 


408  Insufficiency  of  the 

That  God  hath  imprinted  notices  of  himself — 
that  he  hath,  so  to  speak,  written  his  name  upon 
his  works  in  legible  and  luminous  characters — 
that  he  hath  made  a  loud  proclamation  of  "  his 
eternal  power  and  Godhead "  in  the  fabric  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  peculiarly  in  the  struc- 
ture of  that  strange  compound,  the  soul  and 
body  of  man — and  therefore  that  every  man 
living  has  access  to  important  knowledge  of  his 
Maker,  even  in  his  own  person — and  such  know- 
ledge as  must  forever  shame  his  ignorance  and 
forgetfulness — is  an  indisputable  truth.  .  But 
to  infer  that  all  this  is  the  discovery,  or  can  be 
discovered,  by  our  reason,  corrupted  and  blind 
as  it  is,  is  certainly  what  the  logicians  call  a 
non  scquitur. 

You  would  not  say  that  the  non-perception  of 
a  mathematical  truth  affords  any  presumption 
that  the  truth  is  not  perfectly  clear  in  itself. 
You  may  have  met  with  instances  where  a  per- 
son could  not  tell  where  even  the  centre  of  a 
circle  is  to  be  found,  while  to  us  it  is  perfectly 
plain ;  and  the  hesitation  about  it  only  proves 
the  immense  stupidity  which  could  have  any 
doubt  about  the  matter.  To  a  young  child,  that 
three  and  two  are  five  may  appear  a  very  ab- 
struse proposition ;  to  us  it  is  as  clear  as  the  day. 

How  many  things,  moreover,  are  there  in  the 
common  works  of  creation,  which  cannot  be 
discerned  without  previous  instruction,  and  are 


Light  of  Nature.  409 

yet  altogether  obvious  to  a  disciplined  observer  7 
The  very  flowers  of  the  field,  the  common  grass 
upon  which  you  habitually  tread,  disclose  beau- 
ties and  wonders  to  the  eye  of  a  botanist,  which 
are  entirely  hidden  to  our  own  eyes. 

What  miracles  of  wisdom,  power,  design, 
glory,  does  the  contemplation  of  the  starry  hea- 
vens unfold !  There,  if  I  may  dare  so  to  ex- 
press myself,  is  the  walk  of  the  Almighty  God. 
There  he  clothes  himself  icith  light  as  loith  a 
garment,  and  every  footstep  leaves  behind  him  a 
demonstration  that  the  Creator  is  there:  mso- 
much,  that,  to  quote  the  words  of  the  poet, 

An  undevout  astronomer  is  mad. 

Yet  the  ranks  of  modern  philosophy  are  full  of 
these  madmen.  How  often  have  men  gazed 
upon  this  theatre  of  glory,  where  their  Maker  un- 
veils himself  to  their  notice,  without  one  smgle 
thought  of  his  greatness,  his  grandeur,  or  even 

of  his  being '?  .  .  ^ 

In  his  written  word  God  has  been  pleased  to 
make  a  plain  revelation  of  his  perfections  and 
of  his  grace,  so  that  "  he  may  run  who  readeth 
Yet  what  multitudes  are  there,  to  whom  the 
simplest  truths  of  the  gospel,  the  very  A  B  C 
of  religion,  are  riddles  and  mysteries  insolvable 

throughout  7  , 

Now,  what  shall  we  say  to  all  this'?     Is  the 

fault  in  the  evidence,  or  in  the  observer  ?    In  many, 
Vol.  III.  '^2 


410  Insufficiency  of  the 

if  not  all,  of  the  instances  I  have  mentioned,  it 
will  be  acknowledged  that  the  evidence  is  clear 
enough,  but  that  something  is  wrong  about  the 
faculties  which  ought  to  perceive  it.  This  is 
precisely  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  natural 
religion.  The  scriptures  speak  only  of  the  evi- 
dence itself  which  God  has  given  of  himself  and 
his  perfections  in  his  works.  From  this,  worthy 
men  have  drawn  an  inference  respecting  the 
powers  of  human  perception.  In  this  inference 
lies  the  whole  fallacy.  Evidence  in  abundance 
— evidence  clear  as  "  the  sun  shineth  in  its 
strength " — has  he  afforded  of  his  ''  eternal 
power  and.  Godhead."  There  it  is,  and  there  it 
shall  remain,  in  the  works  of  his  hands,  as  long 
as  those  works  endure.  But  man,  miserable 
man,  blinded  and  corrupted  by  his  sin,  cannot 
see  that  evidence — cannot  read  the  letters  of 
light  in  which  the  divine  name  is  inscribed — 
cannot  hear  the  proclamation  which  the  voice  of 
God  utters  throughout  the  universe.  The  argu- 
ment, therefore,  from  the  testimony  of  the  scrip- 
tures, must  be  abandoned;  ,and  the  question 
returns  upon  us  in  all  its  force.  Can  man,  unaided 
by  divine  revelation,  discover  by  nature's  light 
what  he  ought  to  know  of  God  and  of  himself, 
to  lead  him  in  the  way  of  truth  and  blessedness  ? 
It  is  quite  obvious  that  the  knowledge 
which  men  ought  to  have  of  God  for  this  pur- 
pose is  such  as  should  mingle  itself  with  all  the 
operations  of  their  minds;  such  as  should  ex- 


Light  of  Nature.  411 

tend  to  all  the  relations  which  they  bear  to  him  ; 
such  as  should  be  perfectly  clear  to  the  feeblest 
understanding. 

1.  It  is  such  as  should  mingle  itself  with  all 
the  operations  of  their  minds.  God,  I  now  take 
for  granted,  is  a  Spirit — that  his  chief  rule  is  in 
and  over  spirit,  and,  subordinate  to  this,  over  the 
material  world.  Now,  if  there  be  any  opera- 
tions of  created  mind,  which  the  knowledge  of 
God  is  not  to  influence,  then  to  the  whole  extent 
of  such  operations  the  rational  creature  would 
be  independent  of  him,  which  is  neither  more 
nor  less  than  partial  Atheism. 

2.  It  should  be  such  as  extends  to  all  our  re- 
lations ;  for  if  it  does  not,  if  any  be  exempted, 
we  cannot  give  him  all  the  glory  which  is  his 
due  ;  and  we  shall  be  unable  to  tell  whether  the 
point  in  Avhich  we  are  deficient  is  not  essential 
to  both  our  duty  and  our  blessedness. 

3.  It  ought  to  be  perfectly  clear  to  the  feeblest 
understanding.  We  inquire  after  that,  which, 
by  the  nature  of  the  case,  ought  to  be  univer- 
sal. If,  then,  there  be  a  single  human  being,  in 
the  ordinary  exercise  of  his  powers,  who  cannot 
attain  it,  the  whole  scheme  of  natural  religion 
is  ruined.  It  will  not  do  to  produce  us  exam- 
ples of  men  of  great  sagacity,  great  leisure,  and 
great  advantages,  as  examples  of  what  human 
reason  can  do  in  a  case  in  which  every  one  who 
breathes  the  breath  of  life  has  an  equal  interest. 


412  Insufficiency  of  the 

All  are  concerned  to  know ;  and  if  all  have  not 
either  powers  or  means  of  knowing,  I  repeat, 
the  cause  of  natural  religion  is  ruined. 

4.  It  must  not  only  be  clear,  but  accompanied 
with  indubitable  proofs,  such  proofs  as  exclude 
all  uncertainty ;  for  in  so  momentous  a  question 
as  that  concerning  God,  our  duties,  and  our  des- 
tiny, doubt  is  equivalent  to  ignorance ;  and  we 
may  think  we  are  honoring  God,  and  making 
rapid  advances  in  the  way  of  life,  when  we  are 
most  highly  dishonoring  him,  and  going  just  as 
rapidly  the  road  to  death.  There  are  two,  and 
but  two,  methods  of  deciding  this  controversy. 
The  first  is  from  matters  of  fact ;  the  second  is 
a  priori,  from  the  nature  of  the  human  faculties 
compared  with  the  object  which  they  are  to 
effect. 

I.  I  begin  with  the  first  of  these,  inquiring 
what  man  is  able  to  do  by  examining  what  he 
has  done.  Our  work  here  is  very  short.  We 
ask  what  nation  upon  earth  can  be  pointed  out, 
who,  with  all  their  notions  of  divinity,  had  clear 
and  satisfactory  ideas  of  the  living  and  true 
God?  What  could  they  tell  about  his  provi- 
dence? What  about  the  soul  of  man?  Had 
they  ascertained  whether  it  is  mortal  or  immor- 
tal 7  Did  they  know  any  thing  about  true  holi- 
ness? about  the  chief  good?  about  walking 
with  God  ?  about  holding  fellowship  with  him  ? 
If  they  did,  let  the  fact  be  produced ;  if  they  did  not, 


Light  of  Nature.  413 

they  had  no  such  thing  as  is  called  natural  religion. 
But  we  rest  not  here.  It  may  be  thought  that 
we  demand  too  much  when  we  call  for  a  nation 
possessing  this  knowledge.  Be  it  so ;  we  are 
w^ell  aware  that  such  a  nation  cannot  be  found. 
But  let  us  waive  our  demand.  I  ask,  then, 
when,  where,  and  by  whom,  were  these  disco- 
veries made  ?  I  do  not  mean  by  the  vulgar,  but 
by  philosophers,  who  professedly  sought  after 
the  truth ;  and  some  of  whom  were  as  close 
thinkers,  as  accurate  reasoners,  as  patient  and 
candid  investigators,  as  the  world  ever  saw. 
Bacon  himself  did  not  surpass  Aristotle  in  natu- 
ral sagacity,  in  strength  of  mind,  in  acuteness, 
in  comprehension.  Yet  upon  the  simplest  article 
of  natural  religion,  the  very  being  of  a  God,  there 
were  the  most  strange  varieties  of  sentiment 
among  them.  Let  Cicero  save  us  the  trouble  of 
further  detail :  "  Qui  vero,"  says  he,  in  his  treatise 
De  Natura  Deorum,  "  Qui  vero  Deos  esse  dixe- 
runt,  tanta  sunt  in  varietate  ac  dissentione,  ut  eo- 
rum  molestum  sit  dinumerare  sententias."  (De 
Nat.  Deor.  page  6,  Dav.  1744.)  And,  indeed,  who- 
ever shall  be  at  the  trouble  of  reading  the  trea- 
tise now  quoted,  will  meet  with  such  confusion, 
conjectures,  contradiction — such  a  chaos  of  ab- 
surdities and  nonsense  on  points  of  primary  im- 
portance, as  will  sicken  him  to  ulterior  pursuit, 
and  fill  his  heart  with  sadness  and  sorrow. 

Now  these  were  not  the  whims  and  guesses 
of   the  illiterate  among  the  heathen,  but  the 


414  Insiffficiency  of  the 

grave  conclusions  of  their  wisest  men ;  and 
well  justifies  the  declaration  of  Paul,  that  jiro- 
fessing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they  became  fools. 

It  must  be  granted,  however,  that  occasionally 
they  dropped  great  expressions  when  speaking 
of  the  Divinity  and  of  virtue.  But  here  we 
must  be  on  our  guard  against  a  very  natural  and 
dangerous  illusion. 

We,  who  have  been  brought  up  and  educated 
in  a  Christian  land,  have  imbibed  all  our  ideas 
from  the  Bible,  or  those  who  have  read  and  stu- 
died it.  Those  ideas  are  so  familiar  to  our 
minds,  and  so  deeply  impressed  upon  them,  that 
no  art  nor  industry  could  make  us  for  a  moment, 
even  when  children,  believe  in  the  truth,  for  ex- 
ample, of  Ovid's  Metamorphoses,  or  in  the  exist- 
ence of  Homer's  gods.  Now,  when  we  fall  in 
with  noble  and  lofty  expressions  of  divine  things 
among  the  Pagan  writers,  or  with  the  same 
terms  concerning  the  moral  virtues  as  are  in  use 
among  ourselves,  we  insensibly  carry  our  own 
thoughts  with  us,  and  attribute  them  to  the 
heathen,  supposing  that  they  meant  the  same 
thing  with  ourselves,  whereas  nothing  can  be 
farther  from  the  fact.  A  little  explanation,  were 
it  possible,  would  convince  us  that  we  had 
scarcely  an  idea  in  common  with  them. 

Such,  then,  was  the  state  of  their  theology 
among  their  best  informed  and  most  virtuous 
teachers.     There  was  not  a  man  among  them, 


Ldg/U  of  Nature.  415 

no,  not  one  man,  who  had  any  correct  or  con- 
sistent opmions,  far  less  principles,  upon  those 
things  which  concern  our  most  serious  duties, 
our  eternal  blessedness. 

The  conclusion  is  plain.  It  is  absurd  to  main- 
tain that  every  man,  in  all  ages  and  circum- 
stances, can  do,  what  no  man,  in  any  age  or  cir- 
cumstances, has  actually  done.  Revelation, 
therefore,  is  simply  necessary,  not  for  the  vulgar, 
the  illiterate  mass  only,  but  also  for  the  wise, 
the  cultivated,  the  most  advanced  philosophers, 
the  greatest  proficients  in  human  knowledge. 

Having  seen  that  the  powers  of  human  reason 
never  did,  in  fact,  make  the  least  progress  in  the 
discovery  of  the  most  necessary  truths — that 
the  world  by  wisdom  never  knew  God — let  us 
now  proceed, 

II.  To  inquire,  a  priori,  from  the  nature  of 
the  human  faculties,  what  they  can  do  in  this 
matter. 

It  is  no  doubt  very  easy  for  those,  who  have 
all  their  lives  breathed  the  atmosphere  of  reve- 
lation, to  demonstrate  the  being  and  many  glo- 
rious excellencies  of  the  First  Cause,  and  to 
discourse  learnedly  and  convincingly  of  his  pro- 
vidence, of  the  dependence  of  all  things  upon 
him,  upon  the  duty  of  worshiping  him,  the  hap- 
piness of  enjoying  his  favor,  &c.,  from  merely 
rational  principles.  All  this  appears  to  them 
quite  plain,  and  whoever  shall  dispute  it  to  be 


416  Ih.siifficiency  of  the 

hardly  in  the  sober  exercise  of  his  reason.  Well, 
we  have  no  question  but  that  these  truths  are 
perfectly  reasonable,  as  all  truth  must  be  in  the 
nature  of  things.  But  how,  we  may  ask,  did 
they  come  by  their  means  of  demonstration? 
and  how  has  it  happened  that  all  these  vigorous 
demonstrators  liave  flourished  in  Christian 
lands,  and  not  a  single  one  of  them  where  Chris- 
tianity is  unknown  ?  It  is  the  light  of  divine 
revelation  that  has  shone  upon  their  darkness, 
and  caused  them  to  see  clearly  where  all  was 
once  the  blackest  midnight ;  and  they  have, 
with  true  philosophical  gratitude,  bedecked 
their  reason  with  garlands  stolen  from  the  tree 
of  life,  and  given  themselves  credit  for  the  gift 
of  God.  This  plagiarism  runs  manifestly  through 
a  Deistical  book,  formerly  of  some  noise  and 
note,  though  now  nearly  forgotten,  (as  all  such 
books  will  be  sooner  or  later,)  entitled,  "  Chris- 
tianity as  old  as  the  creation.''^  Many  things  are 
perfectly  evident  to  our  understanding  when 
once  they  are  pointed  out,  which,  if  left  to  our- 
selves, would  never  have  come  into  our  minds. 

Let  us  begin  with  interrogating  reason  con- 
cerning God  and  his  attributes ;  though  here  we 
must  be  somewhat  at  a  loss ;  for  really,  human 
reason  is  so  much  improved  by  the  light  of  the 
gospel,  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  distinguish  her 
answers  from  those  of  the  superior  power  speak- 
ing in  her  and  through  her.     But  if,  with  all  this 


Light  of  Nature.  417 

high  advantage,  she  be  caught  tripping,  we  may 
easily  conceive  how  completely  her  mouth  would 
be  stopped  in  the  deprivation  of  all  supernatu- 
ral aid. 

It  is  supposed  to  be  one  of  the  simplest  and 
most  obvious  truths  of  natural  religion,  that 
there  is  but  one  God,  the  Creator  and  Governor 
of  all  things.  If  you  demand  of  her  advocate 
how  he  came  by  this  knowledge,  he  will  reply, 
that  from  the  unity  of  design  in  the  works  of 
creation,  common  sense  will  of  itself  infer  the 
unity  of  their  Author.  But  I  am  not  to  be  so 
easily  satisfied.  I  ask  farther,  how  do  you  knmo 
this  unity  of  design  1  Is  it  not  strange  that  a 
thing  so  very  obvious  should  have  escaped  the 
notice  of  the  most  acute  observers  for  four  thou- 
sand years  ?  Was  there  no  common  sense  in  the 
world  during  all  that  time  1  But  it  must  be  left 
for  men  since  the  Christian  era  to  perceive  this 
unity'?  Evident  to  you  it  may  be;  but  why 
was  it  not  evident  to  Zoroaster,  to  Thales,  to 
Socrates,  to  Aristotle,  to  Plato?  They  cer- 
tainly either  did  not  perceive  it,  or  at  least 
did  not  make  this  deduction  of  common  sense 
from  it. 

Let  us,  however,  consider  whether,  granting 
the  premises,  the  inference  follows  as  a  matter  of 
course.  Does  common  sense  tell  me,  or  any  one 
else,  that  several  deities  may  not  with  perfect 
harmony  concur  in  one   and    the  same  design. 

Vol.  tit.  53 


418  Insufficiency  of  the 

and  keep  up  the  execution  of  that  design  7  If 
they  could,  where  is  your  proof  from  the  unity 
of  design  ?  and  how  are  you  to  prove  that  they 
could  not  1  If  you  draw  your  proof  from  the 
disagreement  which  must  necessarily  take  place 
among  men,  you  then  judge  of  the  divinities  by 
yourselves,  making  yourselves  the  standard  of 
their  actions,  and  making  them  no  more  gods 
than  you  are.  This  looks  much  more  like  the 
theology  of  Homer,  who,  Longinus  being  judge, 
has  represented  his  gods  like  men,  and  his  men 
like  gods.  The  alternative  is  manifestly  this : 
twenty  gods  may  agree  in  producing  the  har- 
mony of  the  universe ;  or  should  they  disagree, 
that  disagreement  would  prove  that  there  are  no 
gods,  which  contradicts  the  very  terms  of  the 
argument,  and  is  a  begging  of  the  question.  My 
argament  is  a  very  plain  one.  Twenty  true 
gods  might  agree  perfectly,  and  you  answer 
this  by  showing  that  they  could  not  be  gods  at 
all !  Well,  then,  your  reason  even  now,  with 
all  that  revelation  has  done  for  it,  fails  most 
lamentably  in  the  proof  that  there  is  only  one 
living  and  true  God.  In  fact  the  doctrine  of 
the  ancient  Persians,  and  later  of  the  Manichees, 
that  there  are  tivo  principles,  one  good  and  the 
other  evil,  appears  to  be  more  consonant  to  de- 
praved reason  than  the  doctrine  of  the  divine 
imity. 

In  the  same  manner  it  may  be  shown,  that 
mere  reason  will  not  bear  you  out  in  the  posi- 


Lii^ht  of  Nature.  419 

tion  that  the  one  God  is  necessarily  the  Eternal, 
Immntahle,  Omnipresent,    Omniscient.     When 
you  come  to  the  consideration  of  his  goodness, 
your  difficulties  increase.     He  does,  indeed,  pour 
his  bounty  upon  the  earth;  but  he  also  pours 
out  his  curse.     A  fruitful  season  is  balanced  by 
one  of  sterility.     If  you  have  one  year  abun- 
dance of  food,  you  have  a  famine  in  another.     If 
the  heavens  are  now  serene  and  pleasing,  they 
are  again  charged  with  thunder  and  lightning, 
pregnant  with  hail-storm  and  tempest.     To-day 
the^'genial  shower  descends  ;  to-morrow  a  flood 
sweeps  off  together  the  fruits  of  human  indus- 
try and  of  the  earth's  fertility,  and  carries  away 
both  man  and  beast  in  its  impetuous  torrent. 
At  one  time  the  atmosphere  is  benign  and  exhi- 
larating; at  another,  charged  with  the  pestilence, 
it  causes  us  to  inhale  our  death  with  the  very 
instrument  of  life.     Nature's  light  furnishes  not 
the  key  to  these  apparent  contradictions,  nor 
enables  us  to  conceive  how  a  Being  of  boundless 
goodness  can  inflict  so  much  suffering.      Coyvjec- 
tures,  p'obahle  conjectures,  we  may  have,  but 
none  can  say  that  his  conjectures  are  demon- 
strated; and  therefore  none  can  show  a  solid 
foundation  on  which  the  mind  can  rest. 

This  deep  and  dreadful  fluctuation  of  opinion, 
arising  from  the  variations  we  perceive  in  the 
government  of  the  world,  shakes  all  our  ideas 
at  the  same  time  of  the  divine  immutability; 


420  Insuffuicncy  of  ihr 

and    a    cliangeling    God     is    a    most    fearful 
thought. 

Should  ever  the  query  arise  in  our  minds,  and 
it  has  often  arisen  in  tiie  minds  of  many,  ichat 
is  the  mode  of  subsistence  in  the  divine  nature  7 
"we  stand  at  once  aghast.     "  It  is  higli  as  heaven, 
what  can  we  know?     Deeper  than  hell,  what 
can  we  do  V     Who  among  the  cliildren  of  men 
is  not  subdued,  confounded,  annihilated,  by  the 
majesty  of  the  theme,  by  his  own  daring  pre- 
sumption 7      Here  we    stand,    young    and   old, 
learned  and  unlearned,  wise  and  foolish,  alike 
petrified  by  our  own  intrusion  "  into  tliose  things 
which  we  have  not  seen."     And  Avho   would 
ever  have  dreamed  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  in  that  one  God,  had  he  not  been  pleased 
to  reveal  the  fact  by  that  Spirit  who  searcheth 
"the  deep   things  of  God 7"     Yet  if  the  true 
knowledge  of  the  true  God  be  essential  in  all 
circumstances  to  our  duty  and  our  happiness, 
the  doctrine  of  the  ever  blessed  Trinity  must  be 
a  branch,  and   a   material    branch,  of  natural 
religion. 

That  the  soul  of  man  is  immortal^  has  been 
argued  from  its  immateriality — from  its  capaci- 
ties— from  its  desirCvS — and  from  the  course  of 
providence — all  of  which,  when  weighed  in  the 
balance,  will  be  found  wanting.  None,  upon 
which,  in  the  hour  of  your  utmost  need,  you 
could  with  confidence  stake  your  eternity. 


Liglit  of  Nature.  421 

1.  It  has  been  argued  that  because  the  soul  is 
immaterial,  it  must  necessarily  be  immortal — 
because  from  its  immateriality,  it  has  no  prin- 
ciple of  dissolution.  Now  death  is  a  dissolu- 
tion, and  that  which  cannot  be  dissolved,  can- 
not die. 

Granting  that  all  this,  except  the  conclusion, 
is  correctly  spoken ;  that  there  is  no  sophistry 
in  the  argument,  no  play  upon  the  terms ;  how 
does  the  conclusion  follow  ?     Life  and  death  de- 
pend upon  the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God.     Now 
wiiere  has  he  told  you  that  he  will  never  com- 
mand an  immaterial  being  back  again  into  its 
original  nothing  ?     When  did  he  deprive  himself 
of  his  power  to  annihilate  any  of  his  creatures, 
and  to  create  others  in  their  stead  7     It  will  not 
do  to  say,  that  whatever  be  his  power,  it  is  not 
his  purpose.     How  do  you  know  that  1     Search 
the  earth  and  the  heavens  till  you  find  a  proof 
of  it.      For  aught  that  appears  from  nature's 
light,  God  may  have  many  wise  reasons  to  de- 
prive   even    immaterial    beings    of    existence. 
They  come  into  the  world  by  his  almighty  fiat. 
They  there  answer  a  temporary  purpose,  and 
then  are  ordered  out  of  it.     What  have  you  to 
say,  why  it  should  not  be  so  7     You  may  not 
pretend  that  it  contradicts  all  your  ideas  of  the 
divine  goodness  and  wisdom.     But  how  are  you 
sure  that  your  ideas  are  riglit?     In  many  other 
things  they  are  manifestly  wrong.     A  short  proof 


422  Insufficiency  of  the 

is,  that  your  goodness  and  wisdom  would  do 
every  thing  in  the  government  of  the  universe 
different  from  what  he  does.  And  suppose  it  be 
the  same  case  here.  You  cannot  show  that  it  is 
not.  Therefore,  for  aught  you  can  tell,  the  soul's 
immateriality  is  no  bar  to  its  annihilation. 

2.  When  we  draw  an  inference  from  the  capa- 
cities of  the  soul  to  its  immortality,  we  talk  at 
random.     Those  capacities  are,  indeed,  in  our 
view,  stupendous.     We  can  form  no  conception 
of  the  improvement  and  powers  which  the  most 
unpromising  of  human  beings  may  in  due  season 
develop.      But  what  are   these   to  the  Infinite 
One?     He  could,  with  perfect  ease,  vacate  all 
their  stations  in  the  scale  of  being,  and  instantly 
replace  them  with  creatures  far  nobler,  and  of 
still  greater  capacities.     The  world,  for  aught 
we  can  tell,  would  be  no  loser  by  the  exchange, 
and  his  glory  might  be  a  great  gainer.     What 
has  your  reason  to  say  to  the  contrary  ?     You 
may  guess,  you  may  conjecture :  but  guessing 
and  conjecturing  afford  a  very  miserable  foot- 
hold when  you  are  about  stepping  into  a  state 
of  untried  being.     And  I  will  venture  to  say, 
that  no  man  ever  yet  enjoyed  any  solid  comfort^ 
from  the  mere  consciousness  of  a  capacity  fitted 
for  lasting  good.     He  must  be  equally  conscious 
of  a  capacity  of  lasting  wo.     And  the  idea  of 
miserable  existence  cannot  be  comfortable. 


Light  of  Nature.  423 

Besides,  men's  capacities  are  not  fully  em- 
ployed here.  Genius  of  the  highest  order  often 
languishes,  is  smothered,  does  not  display  the 
thousandth  partof  its  riches,  dies  unknown,  dis- 
appears, and  is  forgotten.  How  do  you  know 
but  something  of  the  same  kind  may  occur  here- 
after? Many,  multitudes  of  things,  in  the  ani- 
mal and  material  creation,  have  valuable  pro- 
perties, which,  nevertheless,  are  not  unfolded. 
And  I  presume  your  reason  is  not  of  so  morbid 
a  quality  as  to  persuade  you  of  the  immortal 
life  of  horses,  of  trees,  and  cabbages.  Millions 
of  creatures  perish,  without  even  evolving  the 
germ  of  such  faculties  as  they  possess.  How 
can  w^e  determine  what  exhibitions  of  wisdom 
the  Creator  may  please  to  make  by  this  use  of 
his  creatures  ?  We  never  were  of  his  counsel, 
and  where  we  know  nothing,  we  must  not  de- 
cide :  our  best  course  is  to  "  lay  our  hands  on 
our  mouths,  and  our  mouths  in  the  dust,"  and 
to  ask  no  impertinent  nor  curious  questions. 

3.  But  we  have  large  desires ;  vehement  long- 
ings ;  and  intense  appetite  for  immortality. 
Why  were  these  desires  given  ?  this  longing  ex- 
cited 7  this  appetite  implanted  1  Only  to  be 
disappointed?  To  teach  us  to  expect  mighty 
things,  and  vanish  like  a  dream  7  Verily,  this 
looks  like  charging  our  Maker  with  a  deliberate 
mockery. 


4^4  Insufficiency  of  tlie 

Not  so  hasty,  if  you  please.  Are  there  not 
in  other  things,  mnch  desire,  ardent  longing,  in- 
tense appetite,  which,  however,  are  in  fact  dis- 
appointed ?  Is  your  Maker  obliged  to  gratify 
your  wishes,  however  unreasonable  or  extrava- 
gant, under  the  penalty  of  being  accused  of 
mockery  if  he  does  not.  Suppose  one  man  has 
a  passion  for  being  a  king ;  another  for  an  end- 
less succession  of  pleasures ;  a  third  for  more 
wealth  than  is  to  be  found  in  both  the  Indies. 
Is  your  Maker  under  any  possible  necessity  of 
satisfying  this  desire,  this  longing,  this  appetite. 
And  must  we,  wretched  beings  of  a  day,  pre- 
sume to  impeach  his  wisdom  or  goodness,  if  he 
refuse  ? 

It  will  not  be  denied  that  we  are  sinful  crea- 
tures. What  if  all  this  desire  after  immortality 
should  proceed  from  a  sinful  bias  of  our  nature? 
What  if  it  should  be  nothing  but  a  longing,  in- 
herited from  our  first  mother,  who,  as  the  scrip- 
ture informs  us,  wished  very  much  to  be  like 
God  7  What  if  it  should  meet  with  his  rebuke 
instead  of  his  indulgence  1  What  if  it  should, 
after  all,  be  nothing  more  than  that  love  of  life 
which  all  beings  have,  and  strong  in  proportion 
to  their  perception  of  its  sweetness  1  Is  this 
really  a  ground  upon  which  you  rest  your  hope  7 

But  why  did  not  all  these  satisfy  inquirers  of 
old?  Men  had  as  large  capacities,  as  insatiable 
desires  and  longings,  then,  as  they  have  now. 


JLlgfd  of  JVatare.  425 

Yet  Plato,  even  Plato,  the  prince  of  philoso- 
phers, put  his  argument  for  futurity,  I  do  not  say 
immortality,  upon  a  childish  analogy.  Day  suc- 
ceeds night;  and  night  day.  Therefore,  as  death 
succeeds  life,  so  life  must  succeed  death.  And 
to  make  this  sophism  appear  the  worse,  he  has 
put  it  into  the  mouth  of  the  grave,  acute,  sen- 
tentious Socrates.  Plainly  showing  that  even 
that  Avonderful  man  had  nothing  better  to  offer. 

If  we  have  recourse  to  a  moral  plea  from  the 
inequalities  of  God's  government  here,  vice  often 
triumphant,  virtue  depressed,  it  would  seem  that 
his  justice  requires  an  hereafter  :  and  so  it  has 
been,  and  is  yet,  very  confidently  alledged,  that 
if  God  be  just,  he  must  in  a  future  state  .show 
that  righteous  impartiality  w  hich  we  do  not  ob- 
serve to  obtain  here. 

The  utmost  that  can  be  concluded  from  this 
argument,  even  if  we  were  to  grant  its  assump- 
tions, is  that  there  shall  be  a  future  state ;  but 
how  it  proves  that  an  immortal  one,  I  am  unable 
to  see.  For  of  all  arguments  it  appears  to  be 
the  weakest  among  the  weak.  A  single  remark 
will  be  enough  to  refute  it.  Who  among  the 
children  of  men  will  undertake  to  affirm  that  the 
Most  High  God  cannot  rectify  in  a  given  time 
*all  the  inequalities  which  have  taken  place  in  a 
given  time  1  That  he  requires  an  eternity  to 
set  right  what  ever  has  gone  wrong  in  this  tem- 
porary existence  ?     Immortality,  then,  the  une- 

VoL.  III.  54 


426  Insufficiency  of  the 

qual  dispensations  of  Divine  Providence  here 
cannot  prove.  I  w\\\  go  farther,  and  perhaps 
deny  that  they  prove  even  a  future  state.  The 
plea  which  w^e  are  now  considering,  takes  for 
granted,  that  there  is  great  inequality  in  the 
divine  administration.  How  do  you  know  that  ? 
Who  erected  you  into  judges,  and  especially 
compete7it  judges  7  "  You  see  vice  prospering," 
you  say,  "  virtue  depressed  and  despised."  But 
can  you  tell  what  passes  within  the  bosoms  of 
men  7  We  know  from  matter  of  fact,  that  vi- 
cious men,  though  surrounded  with  wealth,  and 
honors,  and  flatterers,  are  sometimes  very  mise-. 
rable.  They  confess  it,  in  spite  of  their  flatter- 
ers. Memorable  is  the  acknowledgment  of  Col. 
Gardiner,  before  he  was  brought  to  the  know- 
ledge, or  had  tasted  the  love  of  God.  He  was 
handsome,  gay,  gallant,  accomplished,  versed  in 
every  form  of  elegant  dissipation,  and  on  all 
sides,  complimented  and  flattered.  Here  is  an 
example  of  prosperous  vice :  but  he  owned,  af- 
terwards, that  in  the  very  moments  of  gayety, 
in  the  very  riots  of  joy,  when  all  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  mirth  and  pleasure  were  paying 
him  homage,  he  has  often  said  to  himself,  when 
a  dog  accidentally  came  into  the  room,  "  O  that 
I  were  that  dog  P^  On  the  contrary,  a  virtuous 
man  in  affliction  has  often  consolations  which 
he  would  not  exchange  for  the  prosperity  of 
vice.     If  it  should  be  otherwise,  remember  that 


Light  of  Nature.  427 

we  arc  poor  judges.  The  all-penetrating  eye  of 
God,  may  detect  some  flaw  in  his  virtue  for 
which  he  deserves  to  be  punished.  Suppose, 
now,  that  the  secret  dealings  of  God  with  virtu- 
ous and  vicious  individuals,  should  completely 
and  exactly  balance  the  difference  of  their  out- 
ward lot — and  that  they  do  not  is  more  than  na- 
ture's light  can  demonstrate — where  is  your  ar- 
gument for  a  future  state.  The  accounts  of  men 
are  finally  settled,  and  there  is  no  room  for  an- 
other state  in  order  to  adjust  them.  I  say,  then, 
that  mere  unaided  reason,  when  .she  so  confi- 
dently vaunts  her  ability  to  show  the  certainty 
of  a  future  and  an  immortal  state,  and  comes  to 
grapple  with  the  proof  and  the  difficulties,  finds 
her  strength  to  fail  her,  and  she  faints  and  falls 
in  the  struggle. 

I  readily  allow  that  all  these  things,  our  ca- 
pacities, our  wishes,  and  other  natural  feelings, 
of  which  no  human  being  can  entirely  divest 
himself,  and  which  render  our  nature  an  ever- 
lasting puzzle  to  our  understandings,  most  ad- 
mirably coincide  with  the  doctrine  of  our  im- 
mortality, when  once  made  known  and  certain 
from  divine  revelation,  while  without  it  they 
afford  nothing  satisfying,  but  leave  the  mind  a 
prey  to  anxiety,  immerse  it  in  doubt,  and  all 
the  distractions  inseparable  from  suspense. 
Such,  then,  is  the  miserable  estate  of  a  man 


428  JnRu.fjjcipnc.if  of  the 

destitute  of  the  benefit  of  God's  revelation. 
He  hopes,  and  he  knows  not  why  :  he  fears,  and 
he  knows  not  what.  His  conscience  fills  him 
with  awful  forebodings  which  he  can  neither 
explain  nor  avoid  :  all  around  him  is  intellectual 
and  moral  chaos.  It  may  be  he  shall  live  here- 
after :  it  may  be  God  shall  call  him  to  account  : 
it  may  be  there  is  happiness  and  glory  in  a  world 
to  come :  but  it  may  be  also,  a  world  of  wo. 
The  forms  which  pass  and  repass  before  his  men- 
tal vision,  are  forms  of  undefined  horror.  He 
has  light  enough  to  let  him  see  that  he  is  inex- 
cusable :  but  not  near  enough  to  discover  the 
cause  of  his  perplexity ;  not  enough  to  see  that 
he  is  ruined ;  and  far,  far  too  little  to  espy  his 
relief.  Despair  broods  over  the  scene ;  and  no- 
thing will  ever  dissipate  the  gloom,  but  the 
"  light  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  shining  in  the 
face  of  Jesus  Christ." 

On  the  supposition  that  there  is  a  happy  here- 
after, a  most  serious  question  and  a  most  tre- 
mendous difficulty  instantly  occur.  The  ques- 
tion is,  ''How  shall  we  attain  it?"  If  you  an- 
swer "  by  doing  the  will  of  God,"  the  difficulty 
immediately  faces  you,  "  How  do  you  A:no?/;  i/ie 
v)ill  of  God  ?"  Hie  labor,  hoc  opus.  What  can 
our  unassisted  reason  discover  of  that  will  ? 
The  sura  and  the  substance  of  all  she  can  say, 
Mr.  Addison  has  put  into  the  mouth  of  Cato,  at 


Light  of  Nahire.  429 

the   very    time   when   he  was  meditating   and 
about  to  perpetrate  suicide, 

If  there's  a  power  above,  (and  that  there  is 
All  nature  cries  aloud  through  all  her  works,) 
He  must  delight  in  virtue  :  and  that  which  he  delights  in 
Must  be  happy. 

Very  poetically  spoken :  but  poetry  will  not 
quiet  a  troubled  conscience.  The  difficulty  still 
remains.  It  is  a  hideous  spectre,  which  all  the 
art  of  poetical  necromancy  cannot  charm  down. 
W\\dit\^  virtue  7  Is  it  conformity  to  the  divine 
will  ?  But  then,  again,  How  am  I  to  ascrMain 
the  divine  will  ?  Till  this  point  be  settled,  I  am 
at  as  great  a  loss  as  ever.  "  You  must  search 
it  out  in  his  works,"  replies  the  advocate  of  na- 
ture's power.  "  Where  ?"  I  impatiently  ask, 
"  Where  ?  Is  it  in  these  heavens  ?  Is  it  in  yonder 
deep  ?  Does  it  shine  in  the  spangled  firmament, 
or  is  it  spread  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  Is  it 
written  upon  the  leaves  of  the  trees,  on  the 
flowrets  of  the  field,  or  to  be  heard  in  the  howl 
of  the  beasts  of  the  forest  1  Show  it,  O  show 
it  to  me! 

You  will  tell  me  that  it  can  be  deduced  as  a 
very  plain  inference  from  the  works  which  we 
behold.  That  from  the  marks  of  skill  and  de- 
sign, every  where  visible  in  creation,  we  very 
naturally  infer,  the  goodness,  the  truth,  the 
kindness  of  their  author.  I  answer,  that  this  is 
not  satisfactory  to  my  mind ;  that  the  conclu- 


430  Tnsiifficiency  of  the 

sion  is  by  much  too  far  from  the  premises ;  that 
there  is  no  natural  nor  necessary  proportion  be- 
tween intellectual  and  moral  attributes,  nor  any 
inference  that  can  at  all  be  drawn  from  his 
works  to  his  idUL  That  I  indeed  see,  in  common 
with  millions  more,  abundant  traces  of  wisdom 
and  power,  but  what  does  all  this  teach  me  of 
the  divine  will7  It  is  true,  that  from  the  con- 
formation of  certain  creatures,  I  can  certainly  in- 
fer his  pleasure  in  some  particulars  :  for  ex- 
ample, from  the  structure  of  our  teeth,  and  the 
cravings  of  our  stomach,  I  may  conclude,  with- 
out hesitation,  that  my  Maker  intended  I  should 
eat :  and  so  of  many  other  physical  things.  But 
this  has  no  sort  of  connection  with  my  moral 
duties.  It  does  not  inform  me  how  I  am  to 
worship  him,  nor  what  course  I  am  to  pursue  to- 
ward my  feilow-creatures.  I  might  eat  to  the 
full,  and  never  think  of  him ;  nor  feel  myself 
impelled  to  one  act  of  kindness  to  my  fellow- 
man. 

When  we  see  a  clock  performing  its  compli- 
cated movement  with  precision,  we  can  and  do 
pronounce,  immediately,  upon  the  skill  of  the 
clockmaker;  but  whoever  thought  of  looking 
at  a  dock  to  determine  the  moral  character  of 
the  man?  So  in  the  machinery  of  the  world. 
It  is  self-evident  that  it  could  not  be  constructed 
but  by  a  being  superlatively  wise  and  skillful. 
But  it  warrants  no  further  conclusion. 


Jbiglit  of  Nature.  431 

The  great  question,  what  does  God  require  of 
me  to  secure  his  favor,  and  my  own  blessedness, 
is  hidden  in  impenetrable  darkness,  notwith- 
standing the  clear  proofs  of  his  skill  and  wisdom 
in  the  creation.  Nor  can  I  derive  any,  the  most 
remote  consolation,  from  his  being  possessed  of 
boundless  skill  and  power.  Who  shall  inform 
me,  with  certainty,  that  his  infinite  resources 
shall  not  be  put  in  requisition  to  make  me  mise- 
rable? Or  who  shall  quiet  the  misgivings  of 
my  conscience  on  this  head  ?  That  there  are 
such  misgivings,  and  very  vehement  ones,  is  a 
fact  for  which  I  have  as  many  vouchers  as  there 
are  men  in  the  world.  But  the  origiii  of  these 
misgivings  is  the  point,  as  well  as  all  the  other 
aberrations  of  the  human  mind.  That  these  are 
very  often  sinful,  that  they  give  to  our  thoughts 
and  purposes  a  criminal  bias,  and  are  the  source 
of  criminal  actions,  who  can  deny,  or  who  ex- 
plain ? 

Here,  then,  a  new  difficulty  occurs.  How  shall 
we  account  for  the  introduction  of  moral  evil,  1 
do  not  say  into  the  universe,  but  into  our  world  ? 
If  we  know  nothing  of  its  original,  we  must  be 
ignorant  of  its  cure. 

Shall  we  say  that  our  Creator  made  us  so  ? 
That  it  was  intermixed  with  the  elements  of 
our  constitution  ah  initio  7  How,  then,  shall  we 
excuse  our  Maker  from  being  the  Author  of 
evil  I     How  reconcile  it  with  his  justice  to  pu- 


432  Insufficiency  of  the 

nisli  man  for  the  very  things  which  he  laid 
him  under  a  necessity  of  committing  1  And  of 
what  use  would  a  pure  law  of  obedience  be,  sup- 
pose we  had  it,  if  by  our  very  nature  we  cannot 
help  transgressing  it  ? 

Is  it  an  adventitious  affection  of  our  being  ? 
How  came  it?  Does  it  excuse  us  from  the 
charge  of  offending  God?  Who  will  demon- 
strate this  ?  On  all  these  points,  momentous  as 
they  are,  we  are  utterly  in  the  dark.  The  dark- 
ness thickens  upon  us  the  moment  we  proceed 
a  step  farther  and  ask  about  our  deliverance. 

Will  the  Most  High  God  pardon  sin  ?  O  yes  ! 
say  the  advocates  of  nature's  light,  he  is  very 
merciful.  It  may  be  so,  but  where  is  your  proof? 
Is  it  in  the  pain,  sickness,  sorrow,  and  death,  of 
which  the  world  is  full  ?  Is  it  in  the  sad  solici- 
tude of  men's  minds  whenever  they  seriously 
ask  such  a  question  ?  Can  you  show  by  facts 
that  God  in  his  dealings  with  men  actually  for- 
gives sin  7  Can  you  point  me  out  one  sinner 
whom  he  has  thus  forgiven?  Methinks,  if  it 
were  so  plain,  so  much  a  matter  of  course,  there 
could  be  no  want  of  those  happy  individuals  to 
whom  he  has* been  gracious.  I  wish  to  see  the 
man  who  can  say,  upon  other  than  scriptural 
grounds,  that  his  iniquities  are  taken  away,  and 
his  sin  purged.  One  fact  is  worth  a  million 
speculations.  If  I  can  see  a  man  walking  in 
the  peace  of  his  conscience,  and  under  a  sense 


Light  of  Nature.  433 

of  forgiving  love,  I  have  done.  We  can  show 
thousands  of  such  men  upon  the  Christian  plan, 
who  can  give  a  rational  account  how  they  came 
by  their  peace,  and  why  they  believe,  that, 
although  sinners,  God  has  most  graciously  for- 
given their  sins.  But  if  I  shut  up  the  Bible,  I 
shut  up  your  hearts  in  midnight  darkness,  in  ill- 
boding  anticipations. 

The  idea  of  repciitancc  for  your  sins  will  per- 
haps afford  you  relief  Man  is  frail,  you  think. 
God  is  most  gracious,  and  what  more  can  he 
ask  of  a  poor  offender  than  all  he  has,  which  is 
to  be  sorry  for  his  offense  and  to  labor  after 
amendment  7 

The  first  question  to  be  resolved  here,  is,  what 
you  understand  by  repentance.  Is  it  merely  sor- 
row for  the  consequences  of  sin?  Men  depre- 
cate punishment,  no  doubt.  No  criminal  can  be 
in  love  with  the  gallows.  But  let  him  once 
free — let  him  escape  the  halter,  and  he  will  be 
as  active  as  ever  in  the  repetition  of  his  crime. 
Is  it  this  repentance  with  which  you  would  put 
off  your  Maker?  To  tell  him,  in  substance, 
that  you  are  very  sorry  that  he  has  detected  you 
in  your  rebellion  ?  very  sorry  that  he  is  stronger 
than  you,  and  that  you  cannot  escape — that  you 
are  alike  unable  to  resist  and  to  flee  ?  and,  there- 
fore, that  he  must  of  course  pardon  you,  or  else  lose 
all  credit  for  generosity  with  you  and  with  rebels 
like  you  ?     Why  not  make  yet  shorter  work  of 

Vol.  Ill  55 


434  Tnsu^ciency  of  the 

it,  and  tell  him  that  it  is  absurd  to  punish  sin  at 
all  1  and  that  if  he  does  not  issue  an  act  of  ge- 
neral indemnity,  he  will  forfeit  your  good  opi- 
nion forever  afterwards  7  This  is  really  the 
amount  of  the  plea  for  pardon  merely  on  ac- 
count of  your  sorrow  for  sin. 

Oh,  but,  say  you,  you  connect  with  your  re- 
pentance the  purpose  and  promise  of  amendment. 
Well,  and  if  you  do,  and  if  you  even  execute 
your  purpose  and  fulfill  your  promise,  what  has 
that  to  do  with  the  question  ?  .  It  is  for  your 
past  transgressions  that  you  are  to  be  punished, 
and  you  purpose  and  promise  to  obey  m  future ! 
Do  you  mean  to  />«?/  your  Creator  1  and  to  pay 
him  with  what  is  already  his  due  ?  Or  do  you 
imagine  you  can  save  any  thing  over  and  above 
the  demands  of  his  law,  and  lay  up  a  fund  of 
merit  out  of  which  you  may  satisfy  its  claims 
on  account  of  former  transgressions  ?  In  moral 
matters  this  is  the  very  rectified  .spirit  of  ab- 
surdity. 

I  would  inquire,  moreover,  if  there  is  any  such 
thing  as  a  penalty  to  God's  law  ?  The  very  no- 
tion of  pardon  seems  to  imply  it ;  and  it  is  ar- 
gued that  repentance  is  to  procure  the  remission 
of  the  penalty,  which  remission  is  another  word 
for  pardon.  Well,  then,  is  this  penalty  a  mere 
bugbear  7  a  painted  scourge,  which  is  never  to 
be  used?  If  it  is,  then  what  becomes  of  the 
authority  of  the  law,  or  the  awful  majesty  of 


Light  of  Nature.  435 

the  divine  government — if  men  do  what  they 
please,  have  nothing  to  fear  from  God  the 
Avenger?  Oh,  no!  will  it  be  said,  it  will  be 
strictly  executed  upon  impenitent  offenders, 
while  to  the  penitent  mercy  will  be  extended. 
That  is  to  say,  that  God  makes,  through  means 
of  nature,  a  proclamation  of  pardon  to  all  rebels 
who  are  willing  to  be  pardoned !  For  this  wish 
to  be  pardoned  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  repent- 
ance. Is  not  this,  now,  a  pretty  government  ?  a 
model  of  impotence  or  indolence,  which  would 
be  overwhelmed  with  ridicule  in  the  affairs  of 
men?  And  shall  we  dare  to  attribute  to  the^ 
''  only  wise  God  "  a  constitution  which  would  be 
laughed  at  for  its  folly,  if  it  were  attempted 
among  men  1  Of  all  the  dreams  which  have  at 
various  times  filled  their  heads  on  the  subject  of 
government,  there  is  none  half  so  crazy,  so  be- 
reft of  common  sense,  as  this  ;  and  such  a  stupid 
constitution  men  would  palm  upon  their  Maker ! 
Let  me  ask  yet  again,  Can  the  Most  High  God 
justly  punish  a  repenting  sinner  in  any  case  ? 
Or  must  all  crimes  whatever  be  forgiven,  pro- 
vided the  criminal  repents?  If  not,  if  he  may 
punish  notwithstanding  repentance,  then  you 
cannot  be  sure  of  pardon,  repent  never  so  much. 
But  if  pardon  must  necessarily  ensue  upon  re- 
pentance, I  ask  farther,  can  the  sinner  repent 
when  he  pleases,  or  must  his  repentance  be  the 
gift  of  God?     If  the  former,  if  his  repentance 


436  Tnsufficiency  of  the 

be  purely  an  act  of  his  own  will,  I  see  not  but 
there  is  a  necessary  abolition  of  all  the  sanction 
of  God's  law  ;  or  which  comes  to  the  same  thing, 
a  sinner  can  evade  it  w  henever  he  pleases,  for  he 
can  repent  whenever  he  pleases,  and  when  he 
repents  he  is  pardoned,  i.  e.  he  can  escape  punisli- 
ment  whenever  he  pleases.     But  if  repentance 
be  a  gift  of  God,  he  must  depend  upon  the  will 
of  another  for  his  pardon;  and  as  the  acts  of 
that  will  cannot  be  compelled,  he  must  owe  his 
forgiveness  to  the  good  pleasure  of  God.     Now, 
whether  he  will  ever  interfere  thus  or  not  in  be- 
half of  man,  he  only  can  tell ;  and  if  he  tells  it, 
that  is  revelation.     Say  not  he  tells  it  in  his 
works  of  creation  and  providence.     I  once  more 
ask,  lohere?     In  the  leaves  of   the  trees?     In 
the  feathers  of  the  birds  ?     In  the  stones  of  the 
ground  1     In  the  streams  of  water  7     It  is  really 
trifling  with  our  most  awful  concerns  to  pretend 
to  find  it  here. 

But  still  there  are  strong  indications  of  God's 
forgiveness  in  the  course  of  his  providence — 
that  his  long  forbearance  bespeaks  his  gracious- 
ness  and  encourages  hopes  of  pardon.  His  for- 
bearance does  indeed  mark  his  graciousness,  and 
wo  to  them  whom  it  never  leads  to  repentance ! 
But  it  extends  equally  to  the  penitent  and  to  the 
impenitent.  If  the  penitent  only  were  objects 
of  the  divine  forbearance,  something  like  an  ar- 
gument might  bje  founded  upon  it.     But  what  if 


Light  of  Nature.  437 

this  forbearance  be  only  until  sinners  have  filled 
up  the  measure  of  their  iniquities'?  Will  pu- 
nishment be  the  lighter  because  it  has  been  long 
delayed?  Shutting  a  man  up  in  prison,  and 
sparing  his  forfeited  life  until  the  day  of  execu- 
tion comes,  does  not  make  execution  at  last 
either  less  certain  or  more  tolerable. 

After  all,  is  it  true  that  we  can  fairly  argue 
any  purpose  of  forgiveness  from  the  acts  of 
Divine  Providence  1  I  mean,  do  these  demon- 
strate the  connection  between  forgiveness  of  sin 
and  the  repentance  of  the  sinner  ? 

In  human  governments,  where  we  find  men's 
most  sober  judgment,  it  is  evident  they  do  not; 
and  in  the  view  of  the  most  wise  and  compas- 
sionate of  the  community,  they  ought  not. 

When  men  are  convicted  of  crime,  they  very 
often  show  great  sorrow  for  their  fault ;  but 
what  should  we  think  of  the  judge  who  should 
liberate  a  prisoner  upon  this  plea?  Nay,  the 
sentence  of  the  law  must  be  heard,  must  take  its 
course  in  the  infliction  of  punishment,  even  to 
the  loss  of  life  itself.  And  do  we  not  see  in  the 
government  of  God,  as  administered  in  his  pro- 
vidence, innumerable  instances  when  the  pe- 
nalty annexed  to  transgression  actually  follows 
the  oflfense,  be  the  offender  never  so  contrite  ? 

A  man  impoverishes  himself  by  his  extrava- 
gance, and  ruins  his  family  besides.  He  wastes 
his  health,  and  becomes  a  prey  to  lingering  and 


438  fns2(fficiency,  &c. 

loathsome  disorders  by  his  dissipation.  He  may 
become  extremely  sorry  for  his  excesses,  but 
does  that  for  one  moment  arrest  the  penalty  ? 
Does  his  penitence  drive  poverty  from  his  door, 
or  restore  his  family  to  comfort?  Does  peni- 
tence heal  his  diseases,  and  sweeten  his  body  ? 
Penitent,  truly  penitent,  he  may  be;  ay,  and 
his  sins  may  be  forgiven,  too,  for  the  w^orld  to 
come,  and  the  fruits  of  them  may  be  death  with- 
out mercy  here. 

Whether,  then,  we  consult  the  nature  of  the 
case,  or  hearken  to  the  voice  of  God  speaking 
in  the  acts  of  his  government,  the  only  conclu- 
sion to  be  drawn  from  both,  is,  that  repentance 
does  not  procure  forgiveness ;  so  that  for  any 
thing  nature's  light  or  the  light  of  reason  can 
show  us,  the  hope  of  a  sinner  is  as  the  giving  up 
of  the  ghost. 


END  OF  VOL.  III. 


Princeton  Theological  Semi"ary  Libraries 


1    1012  Oil 


95  8743 


